Ethical issues in newborn screening research: lessons from the Wisconsin cystic fibrosis trial

Using Newborn Screening Bloodspots for Research: Public Preferences for Policy Options

OBJECTIVES

Retaining residual newborn screening (NBS) bloodspots for medical research remains contentious. To inform this debate, we sought to understand public preferences for, and reasons for preferring, alternative policy options.

METHODS

We assessed preferences among 4 policy options for research use of residual bloodspots through a bilingual national Internet survey of a representative sample of Canadians. Fifty percent of respondents were randomly assigned to select reasons supporting these preferences. Understanding of and attitudes toward screening and research concepts, and demographics were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1102 respondents (94% participation rate; 47% completion rate), the overall preference among policy options was ask permission (67%); this option was also the most acceptable choice (80%). Assume permission was acceptable to 46%, no permission required was acceptable to 29%, and no research allowed was acceptable to 26%. The acceptability of the ask permission option was reduced among participants assigned to the reasoning exercise (84% vs 76%; P = .004). Compared with assume/no permission required, ordered logistic regression showed a significant reduction in preference for the ask permission option with greater understanding of concepts (odds ratio, 0.87; P < .001), greater confidence in science (odds ratio, 0.16; P < .001), and a perceived responsibility to contribute to research (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Surveyed Canadians prefer that explicit permission is sought for storage and research use of NBS bloodspots. This preference was diminished when reasons supporting and opposing routine storage, and other policy options, were presented. Findings warrant consideration as NBS communities strategize to respond to shifting legislative contexts.

Potential Uses and Inherent Challenges of Using Genome-Scale Sequencing to Augment Current Newborn Screening

Since newborn screening (NBS) began in the 1960s, technological advances have enabled its expansion to include an increasing number of disorders. Recent developments now make it possible to sequence an infant's genome relatively quickly and economically. Clinical application of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing is expanding at a rapid pace but presents many challenges. Its utility in NBS has yet to be demonstrated and its application in the pediatric population requires examination, not only for potential clinical benefits, but also for the unique ethical challenges it presents.

Parental permission for pilot newborn screening research: guidelines from the NBSTRN

There is broad recognition of the need for population-based research to assess the safety and efficacy of newborn screening (NBS) for conditions that are not on current panels. However, prospective population-based research poses significant ethical, regulatory, and logistical challenges. In the context of NBS, there have been a variety of approaches that address parental decision-making in pilot studies of new screening tests or conditions. This article presents an ethical and legal analysis of the role of parental permission by the Bioethics and Legal Work Group of the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network created under a contract from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Circumstances are outlined in which a waiver of documentation of permission or a waiver of permission may be ethically and legally appropriate in the NBS context. These guidelines do not constitute American Academy of Pediatrics policy.

Public attitudes regarding a pilot study of newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy

A population-based pilot study of newborns screening for a rare genetic condition, spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), is being conducted with funding from the National Institutes of Health. The first component of the study is to assess the ethical, legal, and social implications of population-based pilot studies with a focus on public engagement and parental decision-making for the proposed opt-out approach in this research. We conducted focus groups with members of the general public to ascertain attitudes about the pilot study and acceptability of an opt-out approach in two states, Colorado and Utah, where the pilot screening is being proposed (N = 70). We developed an informational video for the project and showed it to the groups prior to the discussion in order to inform participants about population-based research, newborn screening (NBS), permission/consent models, and SMA. Results indicated support for the conduct of pilot studies that is consistent with the current standard of practice for similar population-based programs. There was support for an opt-out approach for parental decision-making; however there was limited parental knowledge about population-based research, NBS and SMA. In general, our participants considered this pilot study to be low risk and of potential benefit to infants and families. The majority of participants were supportive of an opt-out approach with information delivered through various avenues

Quality improvement ethics: lessons from the SUPPORT study

The Office of Human Research Protections was not justified in issuing findings against the SUPPORT Institutions. Our community can learn from the evolving healthcare transformation into learning health systems by thinking about the novel ethical issues about standard of care research raised by the SUPPORT with the same spirit of quality improvement. The current regulatory framework and the concept of foreseeable research risks is insufficient to advance the debate about the ethics of randomization of standard clinical interventions. This article uses the example of the Wisconsin cystic fibrosis randomized clinical trial for newborn screening trial to explore the distinctions between risks of research and clinical care and waivers of informed consent for randomization. Collaborative exploration of these complex policy issues is needed and further deliberation, community engagement, and social science research will be critical to advance novel approaches for informed consent.

Parents' decisions to screen newborns for FMR1 gene expansions in a pilot research project

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to document rates of parental consent in a pilot study of newborn screening for FMR1 gene expansions, examine demographic characteristics of mothers who consented or declined, describe the reasons for their decision, and discuss ethical and social aspects of the consent process.

METHODS

A brief survey was used to record basic demographic data from mothers and an open-ended question was used to elicit parents' reasons for accepting or declining screening. A descriptive analysis was conducted on the number of mothers who consented to or declined screening, and a logistic regression model predicted mothers' likelihood to agree to screening based on demographic characteristics. Reasons for decisions were analyzed using content analysis. The study was conducted at University of North Carolina Hospitals. A total of 2137 mothers were approached.

RESULTS

The uptake rate for couples was 63%. Acceptance rates varied by race/ethnicity, with black respondents being less likely to accept screening. Primary reasons for accepting were "to know," "belief in research," and "the test was minimal/no risk." Reasons for declining included not wanting to know or worry, not being a good time, and issues with testing children or with genetic tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings demonstrate that a majority of parents accepted newborn screening for FMR1 gene expansions, but decision rates and reasons for accepting or declining varied in part as a function of race/ethnicity and in part as a function of what parents most valued or feared in their assessment of risks and benefits.

Ethical, legal, and social concerns about expanded newborn screening: fragile X syndrome as a prototype for emerging issues

Technology will make it possible to screen for fragile X syndrome and other conditions that do not meet current guidelines for routine newborn screening. This possibility evokes at least 8 broad ethical, legal, and social concerns: (1) early identification of fragile X syndrome, an "untreatable" condition, could lead to heightened anxiety about parenting, oversensitivity to development, alterations in parenting, or disrupted bonding; (2) because fragile X syndrome screening should be voluntary, informed consent could overwhelm parents with information, significantly burden hospitals, and reduce participation in the core screening program; (3) screening will identify some children who are or appear to be phenotypically normal; (4) screening might identify children with other conditions not originally targeted for screening; (5) screening could overwhelm an already limited capacity for genetic counseling and comprehensive care; (6) screening for fragile X syndrome, especially if carrier status is disclosed, increases the likelihood of negative self-concept, societal stigmatization, and insurance or employment discrimination; (7) screening will suggest risk in extended family members, raising ethical and legal issues (because they never consented to screening) and creating a communication burden for parents or expanding the scope of physician responsibility; and (8) screening for fragile X syndrome could heighten discrepancies in how men and women experience genetic risk or decide about testing. To address these concerns we recommend a national newborn screening research network; the development of models for informed decision-making; materials and approaches for helping families understand genetic information and communicating it to others; a national forum to address carrier testing and the disclosure of secondary or incidental findings; and public engagement of scientists, policy makers, ethicists, practitioners, and other citizens to discuss the desired aims of newborn screening and the characteristics of a system needed to achieve those aims.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy: issues in expanding newborn screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To illustrate potential risks and benefits of disease screening for newborns using the example of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a wide range in the reported positive predictive value for screening male newborns for Duchenne muscular dystrophy by the creatine kinase level on dried blood spots. Some parental anxiety is associated with both early detection and false-positive screening results. No data are available about the impact of the diagnosis on the child, including the impact of early initiation of therapy. Studies suggest that few parents change their future reproductive planning based on identification of Duchenne muscular dystrophy through screening. Few data are available regarding the cost of newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and there are insufficient data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Duchenne muscular dystrophy screening.

SUMMARY

Available data are insufficient to recommend routine newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Understanding the gaps in knowledge provides insight into the evidence needed to recommend newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Studies are needed to evaluate the potential risks and benefits of screening, including the associated incremental costs.

Changing perspectives on the benefits of newborn screening

The likelihood of benefit is fundamental to decision making about newborn screening. But benefit is construed in different ways by different stakeholders. This article begins with a review of benefit as considered historically by various expert panels and organizations. We then show how 78 conditions fared when experts recently rated them on benefit using a scoring system recommended by a task force of the American College of Medical Genetics. Finally, we analyze how benefit is reflected in the public comments submitted in response to the ACMG report. Results show that benefit has been and remains a core consideration for screening decisions. Historically the focus has been on improved physical health as a result of medical treatment; however, in only 4 of the 78 conditions rated does newborn screening prevent all negative consequences. In fact the majority of both core conditions (51.7%) and secondary targets (87.5%) recommended in the ACMG report were rated as having treatments that prevented only some negative consequences. All conditions rated had perceived benefits for family and society, but currently no conditions are screened on the basis of family or societal benefits alone. No agreed-upon threshold exists for what would be considered meaningful benefit, and stakeholder groups differ in their perceptions of benefit. We conclude by suggesting several key research studies needed to further inform public policy.

Research for newborn screening: developing a national framework

Newborn metabolic screening represents the largest application of genetic testing in medicine. As new technologies are developed, the number of conditions amenable to newborn screening (NBS) will continue to expand. Despite the scope of these programs, the evidence base for a number of NBS applications remains relatively weak. This article briefly reviews the evidence base for several conditions. The article then develops a proposal for a structured sequence of research protocols to evaluate potential applications for NBS before their formal implementation in public health programs. Such a framework for research will require collaboration between states and the federal government, a collaboration that is emerging through recent federal legislation and funding.

Research with newborn participants: doing the right research and doing it right

Research ethics encompass debate about what research topics matter, for example in relation to social values and individual needs, and debate about how to conduct research in an ethical manner, for example in relation to protecting the rights of vulnerable research participants. Research in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), where critically ill infants receive expensive and often invasive treatment, raises unique issues with regard to what research should be conducted and how to conduct it in an ethical manner. This discussion addresses the neonatal nurse's role in setting the research agenda in neonatal care-influencing what topics are researched and serving as lead investigators on studies, and highlights their role in ensuring that research is conducted correctly-protecting the rights of infant participants and their families. The involvement of neonatal nurses in research ethics has been a valuable contribution to the development of the field. A greater level of involvement is now needed, particularly at the policy level where funding and procedural issues are decided. New approaches are also needed and could involve more direct collaboration between nurses and parents.