Donald B Bailey1, Elizabeth Berry-Kravis2, Louise W Gane3, Sonia Guarda4, Randi Hagerman3, Cynthia M Powell4, Flora Tassone3, Anne Wheeler5. 1. Center for Newborn Screening, Ethics, and Disability Studies, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; dbailey@rti.org. 2. Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 3. MIND Institute, University of California at Davis, Sacramento, California; and. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Center for Newborn Screening, Ethics, and Disability Studies, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delays in the diagnosis of children with fragile X syndrome (FXS) suggest the possibility of newborn screening as a way to identify children earlier. However, FXS does not have a proven treatment that must be provided early, and ethical concerns have been raised about the detection of infants who are carriers. This article summarizes major findings from a multisite, prospective, longitudinal pilot screening study. METHODS: Investigators in North Carolina, California, and Illinois collaborated on a study in which voluntary screening for FXS was offered to parents in 3 birthing hospitals. FXS newborn screening was offered to >28 000 families to assess public acceptance and determine whether identification of babies resulted in any measurable harms or adverse events. Secondary goals were to determine the prevalence of FMR1 carrier gene expansions, study the consent process, and describe early development and behavior of identified children. RESULTS: A number of publications have resulted from the project. This article summarizes 10 "lessons learned" about the consent process, reasons for accepting and declining screening, development and evaluation of a decision aid, prevalence of carriers, father participation in consent, family follow-up, and maternal reactions to screening. CONCLUSIONS: The project documented public acceptance of screening as well as the challenges inherent in obtaining consent in the hospital shortly after birth. Collectively, the study provides answers to a number of questions that now set the stage for a next generation of research to determine the benefits of earlier identification for children and families.
BACKGROUND: Delays in the diagnosis of children with fragile X syndrome (FXS) suggest the possibility of newborn screening as a way to identify children earlier. However, FXS does not have a proven treatment that must be provided early, and ethical concerns have been raised about the detection of infants who are carriers. This article summarizes major findings from a multisite, prospective, longitudinal pilot screening study. METHODS: Investigators in North Carolina, California, and Illinois collaborated on a study in which voluntary screening for FXS was offered to parents in 3 birthing hospitals. FXS newborn screening was offered to >28 000 families to assess public acceptance and determine whether identification of babies resulted in any measurable harms or adverse events. Secondary goals were to determine the prevalence of FMR1 carrier gene expansions, study the consent process, and describe early development and behavior of identified children. RESULTS: A number of publications have resulted from the project. This article summarizes 10 "lessons learned" about the consent process, reasons for accepting and declining screening, development and evaluation of a decision aid, prevalence of carriers, father participation in consent, family follow-up, and maternal reactions to screening. CONCLUSIONS: The project documented public acceptance of screening as well as the challenges inherent in obtaining consent in the hospital shortly after birth. Collectively, the study provides answers to a number of questions that now set the stage for a next generation of research to determine the benefits of earlier identification for children and families.
Authors: Keren K Griffiths; Aili Wang; Lifei Wang; Matthew Tracey; Giulio Kleiner; Catarina M Quinzii; Linlin Sun; Guang Yang; Jose F Perez-Zoghbi; Pawel Licznerski; Mu Yang; Elizabeth A Jonas; Richard J Levy Journal: FASEB J Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Meghan R Swanson; Jason J Wolff; Mark D Shen; Martin Styner; Annette Estes; Guido Gerig; Robert C McKinstry; Kelly N Botteron; Joseph Piven; Heather C Hazlett Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Anne C Wheeler; Angela Gwaltney; Melissa Raspa; Katherine C Okoniewski; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Kelly N Botteron; Dejan Budimirovic; Heather Cody Hazlett; David Hessl; Molly Losh; Gary E Martin; Susan M Rivera; Jane E Roberts; Donald B Bailey Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Donald B Bailey; Lisa M Gehtland; Megan A Lewis; Holly Peay; Melissa Raspa; Scott M Shone; Jennifer L Taylor; Anne C Wheeler; Michael Cotten; Nancy M P King; Cynthia M Powell; Barbara Biesecker; Christine E Bishop; Beth Lincoln Boyea; Martin Duparc; Blake A Harper; Alex R Kemper; Stacey N Lee; Rebecca Moultrie; Katherine C Okoniewski; Ryan S Paquin; Denise Pettit; Katherine Ackerman Porter; Scott J Zimmerman Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Kailey M Owens; Lindsay Dohany; Carol Holland; Jeana DaRe; Tobias Mann; Christina Settler; Ryan E Longman Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 2.802