Explore the vast range of titles available.

Newborn screening (NBS) has widely been utilized in developed countries as a cost-effective public health strategy that reduces morbidity and mortality. Developing countries, however, are new to the NBS scene and have their own unique challenges, both in instituting the program as well as effectively acting on the results. NBS offers numerous ethical issues on a global scale, however, here we argue that there are unique ethical issues surrounding the development and expansion of newborn screening in Latin America given its highly heterogenous population. Once a NBS program is effectively instated, ethical considerations continue when pursuing expansion of screening to include further conditions. While Latin America grapples with the ethics of expanded newborn screening (ENBS), some developed countries discuss utility of genomic sequencing technologies in the newborn population. When the ability to detect further pathology is expanded, one must know what to do with this information. As rare diseases are identified either on ENBS or via genome sequencing, access to treatments for these rare diseases can be a real challenge. If we consider newborn screening as a global initiative, then we need more than a deontology approach to analyze these challenges; we need an approach that considers the unique characteristics of each territory and tremendous heterogeneity that exists prior to the implementation of these programs. As genomic technology advances further in the developed world, while some developing countries still lack even basic newborn screening, there is a further widening of the gap in global health disparities. The question is posed as to who has responsibility for these newborns’ lives on an international level. Without an approach towards newborn screening that accounts for the diverse global population, we believe optimal outcomes for newborns and families across the world will not be achieved.

Background The greatest opportunity for lifelong impact of genomic sequencing is during the newborn period. The “BabySeq Project” is a randomized trial that explores the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns. Methods Families of newborns are enrolled from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital nurseries, and half are randomized to receive genomic sequencing and a report that includes monogenic disease variants, recessive carrier variants for childhood onset or actionable disorders, and pharmacogenomic variants. All families participate in a disclosure session, which includes the return of results for those in the sequencing arm. Outcomes are collected through review of medical records and surveys of parents and health care providers and include the rationale for choice of genes and variants to report; what genomic data adds to the medical management of sick and healthy babies; and the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns. Discussion The BabySeq Project will provide empirical data about the risks, benefits and costs of newborn genomic sequencing and will inform policy decisions related to universal genomic screening of newborns. Trial registration The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02422511 . Registration date: 10 April 2015.

Purpose Genomic newborn screening raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence is required to build a framework to introduce this technology safely and effectively. We investigated the choices made by a diverse group of parents with newborns when offered tiered genomic information from exome sequencing. Methods This population-derived cohort comprised infants with congenital deafness. Parents were offered exome sequencing and choice regarding the scope of analysis. Options were choice A, diagnostic analysis only; choice B, diagnostic analysis plus childhood-onset diseases with medical actionability; or choice C, diagnostic analysis plus childhood-onset diseases with or without medical actionability. Results Of the 106 participants, 72 (68%) consented to receive additional findings with 29 (27.4%) selecting choice B and 43 (40.6%) opting for choice C. Family size, ethnicity, and age of infant at time of recruitment were the significant predictors of choice. Parents who opted to have additional findings analysis demonstrated less anxiety and decisional conflict. Conclusions These data provide evidence from a culturally diverse population that choice around additional findings is important and the age of the infant when this choice is offered impacts on their decision. We found no evidence that offering different levels of genomic information to parents of newborns has a negative psychological impact.

Background It is essential that studies of genomic sequencing (GS) in newborns and children include individuals from under-represented racial and ethnic groups (URG) to ensure future applications are equitably implemented. We conducted interviews with parents from URG to better understand their perspectives on GS research, develop strategies to reduce barriers to enrollment, and facilitate research participation. Methods Semi-structured interviews with 50 parents from URG. Results Nearly all parents said they would be interested in participating in an infant GS study. Parents were interested in participating in GS research for reasons including clinical utility, personal utility, and/or family health benefits. Deterrents to enrollment cited by parents were discomfort with enrollment procedures (e.g., not wanting a heel stick), limited emotional bandwidth, unfavorable perceptions of the study, and concerns about potential results. Most parents said they would want to receive all types of genetic results, including actionable and non-actionable, as well as childhood- and adult-onset. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that parents from URG are interested in participating in GS research. Based upon these findings, we provide recommendations for designing GS studies that are responsive to their concerns.

Driven by technological innovations, newborn screening (NBS) panels have been expanded and the development of genomic NBS pilot programs is rapidly progressing. Decisions on disease selection for NBS are still based on the Wilson and Jungner (WJ) criteria published in 1968. Despite this uniform reference, interpretation of the WJ criteria and actual disease selection for NBS programs are highly variable. A systematic literature search [PubMED search “Wilson” AND “Jungner”; last search 16.07.22] was performed to evaluate the applicability of the WJ criteria for current and future NBS programs and the need for adaptation. By at least two reviewers, 105 publications (systematic literature search, N = 77; manual search, N = 28) were screened for relevant content and, finally, 38 publications were evaluated. Limited by the study design of qualitative text analysis, no statistical evaluation was performed, but a structured collection of reported aspects of criticism and proposed improvements was instead collated. This revealed a set of general limitations of the WJ criteria, such as imprecise terminology, lack of measurability and objectivity, missing pediatric focus, and absent guidance on program management. Furthermore, it unraveled specific aspects of criticism on clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, and economical aspects. A major obstacle was found to be the incompletely understood natural history and phenotypic diversity of rare diseases prior to NBS implementation, resulting in uncertainty about case definition, risk stratification, and indications for treatment. This gap could be closed through the systematic collection and evaluation of real-world evidence on the quality, safety, and (cost-)effectiveness of NBS, as well as the long-term benefits experienced by screened individuals. An integrated NBS public health program that is designed to continuously learn would fulfil these requirements, and a multi-dimensional framework for future NBS programs integrating medical, ethical, legal, and societal perspectives is overdue.

Objective To explore the clinical application of NeoSeq in newborn screening. Methods Based on the results obtained from traditional newborn screening (NBS) with tandem mass spectrometry (TMS), three cohorts were recruited into the present study: 36 true positive cases (TPC), 60 false-positive cases (FPC), and 100 negative cases. The dried blood spots of the infants were analyzed with NeoSeq, which is based on multiplex PCR amplicon sequencing. Results Overall, the sensitivity of NeoSeq was 55.6% (20/36) in the detection of TPC. NeoSeq detected disease-related genes in 20 of 36 TPC infants, while it could not identify these genes in eight children. Five cases (3.1%) with disease risk were additionally found in the FPC and NC cohorts. There was a significant difference in the diagnostic time between the two methods—10 days for NeoSeq vs. 43 days for traditional NBS. Conclusions NeoSeq is an economic genomic screening test for newborn screening. It can detect most inborn errors of metabolism, reduce the rate of false positive results, shorten the porting cycles, and reduce the screening cost. However, it is still necessary to further optimize the panel design and add more clinically relevant genomic variants to increase its sensitivity.

Objective To explore the use of genomic screening for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) based on long-read sequencing (LRS), aiming to provide an effective method for LRS-based screening (LRSBCS). Methods All newborns underwent traditional CAH screening via the collection of dried blood spots. We conducted a retrospective clinical study of 73 cases, including 12 confirmed cases of CAH, 18 cases with false-positive biochemical screening results, and 43 healthy newborns as control. Full-length CAH-related genes, including CYP21A2 , CYP11B1 , CYP17A1 , HSD3B2 , and STAR were amplified and sequenced on a Sequel II platform (Pacific Biosciences). Results Among the 235,999 newborns, 12 were confirmed to have CAH, based on biochemical and/or genetic testing. The positive-predictive values of the initial and positive recall results were 0.60% (12/1958) and 3.68% (12/326), respectively. The 12 children with CAH were accurately diagnosed using LRSBCS. For LRS, the Bayesian-estimated sensitivity is 96.2% (95% CrI: 80.3%–99.9%) and the specificity is 99.2% (95% CrI: 98.0%–99.9%). Eleven pathogenic variants of CYP21A2 were detected, including eight SNVs/indels and three deletions. The most frequent variants were c.293–13 C > G (7/11) and c.518T > A (7/11). Furthermore, LRSBCS can directly report the characteristics of gene variants (cis or trans mutations) and effectively distinguish between functional genes and pseudogenes. Conclusions LRSBCS represents a novel molecular screening approach tailored specifically for CAH, demonstrating preliminary feasibility in clinical settings. Clinical trial number Not applicable.

The use of next-generation sequencing technologies such as genomic sequencing in newborn screening (NBS) could enable the detection of a broader range of conditions. We explored parental preferences and attitudes towards screening for conditions for which varying types of treatment exist with a cross-sectional survey completed by 100 parents of newborns who received NBS in Ontario, Canada. The survey included four vignettes illustrative of hypothetical screening targets, followed by questions assessing parental attitudes. Chi-square tests were used to compare frequency distributions of preferences. Results show that most parents supported NBS for conditions for which only supportive interventions are available, but to a significantly lesser degree than those with disease-specific treatments (99% vs. 82–87%, p ≤ 0.01). For conditions without an effective treatment, the type of supportive care and age of onset of the condition did not significantly alter parent perceptions of risks and benefits. Parents are interested in expanded NBS for conditions with only supportive interventions in childhood, despite lower levels of perceived benefit for the child and greater anticipated anxiety from screen-positive results. These preferences suggest that the expansion of NBS may require ongoing deliberation of perceived benefits and risks and enhanced approaches to education, consent, and support.

With the expansion of newborn screening conditions globally and the increased use of genomic technologies for early detection, there is a need for ethically nuanced policies to guide the future integration of ever-more comprehensive genomics into population-based newborn screening programs. In the current paper, we consider the lived experiences of 169 family caregivers caring for 77 children with NBS-related conditions to identify lessons learned that can inform policy and practice related to population-based newborn screening using genomic technologies. Based on caregiver narratives obtained through in-depth interviews, we identify themes characterizing these families’ diagnostic odyssey continuum, which fall within two domains: (1) medical management implications of a child diagnosed with an NBS-related condition and (2) psychological implications of a child diagnosed with an NBS-related condition. For Domain 1, family caregivers’ experiences point to the need for educational resources for both health care professionals that serve children with NBS-related conditions and their families; empowerment programs for family caregivers; training for providers in patient-centered communication; and access to multi-disciplinary specialists. For Domain 2, caregivers’ experiences suggest a need for access to continuous, long-term counseling resources; patient navigator resources; and peer support programs. These lessons learned can inform policy recommendations for the benefit of the child, the family, the healthcare system, and society.

Recent advances in genomic sequencing technologies have expanded practitioners’ utilization of genetic information in a timely and efficient manner for an accurate diagnosis. With an ever-increasing resource of genomic data from progress in the interpretation of genome sequences, clinicians face decisions about how and when genomic information should be presented to families, and at what potential expense. Presently, there is limited knowledge or experience in establishing the value of implementing genome sequencing into newborn screening. Herein we provide insight into the complexities and the burden and benefits of knowledge resulting from genome sequencing of newborns.