Public support for neonatal screening for Pompe disease, a broad-phenotype condition

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Marloes Louise Catharina Hagemans²  Martina Cornelia Cornel⁵  Arnold JJ Reuser⁶  Ans T van der Ploeg²  Pieter Johannes Kostense³  Wybo Jan Dondorp¹  Carla Geertruida van El⁵  Tessel Rigter⁵  Stephanie Shifra Weinreich⁴ 

[1] Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Research Institutes GROW and CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;Department of Pediatrics, Division of Metabolic Diseases and Genetics and Center for Lysosomal and Metabolic Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Clinical Genetics/EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Postbox 7057, BS7 H459, Amsterdam 1007 MB, Netherlands;Department of Clinical Genetics/EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Clinical Genetics and Center for Lysosomal and Metabolic Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Consumer participation;    Health policy;    Biomedical;    Technology assessment;    Glycogen storage disease type II;    Neonatal screening;   

Others  :  864448
DOI  :  10.1186/1750-1172-7-15

 received in 2011-11-02, accepted in 2012-03-14,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Neonatal screening for Pompe disease has been introduced in Taiwan and a few U.S. states, while other jurisdictions including some European countries are piloting or considering this screening. First-tier screening flags both classic infantile and late-onset Pompe disease, which challenges current screening criteria. Previously, advocacy groups have sometimes supported expanded neonatal screening more than professional experts, while neutral citizens' views were unknown. This study aimed to measure support for neonatal screening for Pompe disease in the general public and to compare it to support among (parents of) patients with this condition. The study was done in the Netherlands, where newborns are not currently screened for Pompe disease. Newborn screening is not mandatory in the Netherlands but current uptake is almost universal.

Methods

A consumer panel (neutral group) and (parents of) patients with Pompe disease (Pompe group) were sent information and a questionnaire. Responses were analyzed of 555 neutral and 58 Pompe-experienced informants who had demonstrated sufficient understanding.

Results

87% of the neutral group and 88% of the Pompe group supported the introduction of screening (95% CI of difference -10 to 7%). The groups were similar in their moral reasoning about screening and acceptance of false positives, but the Pompe-experienced group expected greater benefit from neonatal detection of late-onset disease. Multivariate regression analysis controlling for demographics confirmed that approval of the introduction of screening was independent of having (a child with) Pompe disease. Furthermore, respondents with university education, regardless of whether they have (a child with) Pompe disease, were more likely to be reluctant about the introduction of screening than those with less education, OR for approval 0.29 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.49, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This survey suggests a rather high level of support for newborn screening for Pompe disease, not only among those who have personal experience of the disease but also among the general public in the Netherlands. Optional screening on the basis of informed parental consent is probably unrealistic, underlining the need for new guidelines to help policymakers in their consideration of newborn screening for broad phenotype conditions.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Weinreich et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]ISNS General Guidelines for Neonatal Screening. International Society for Neonatal Screening [http://www.isns-neoscreening.org/htm/generalguidelines.htm] webcite 2008. [Accessed Nov.2, 2011]
• [2]Bombard Y, Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Avard D, Knoppers BM: Reconsidering reproductive benefit through newborn screening: a systematic review of guidelines on preconception, prenatal and newborn screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2010, 18:751-760.
• [3]The President's Council on Bioethics: The changing moral focus of newborn screening. [http:/ / bioethics.georgetown.edu/ pcbe/ reports/ newborn_screening/ Newborn%20Screening%20for%20the%20w eb.pdf] webcite 2008. [Accessed Nov.2, 2011]
• [4]Marsden D, Levy H: Newborn screening of lysosomal storage disorders. Clin Chem 2010, 56:1071-1079.
• [5]Ausems MG, Verbiest J, Hermans MP, Kroos MA, Beemer FA, Wokke JH, et al.: Frequency of glycogen storage disease type II in The Netherlands: implications for diagnosis and genetic counselling. Eur J Hum Genet 1999, 7:713-716.
• [6]Van den Hout HM, Hop W, van Diggelen OP, Smeitink JA, Smit GP, Poll-The BT, et al.: The natural course of infantile Pompe's disease: 20 original cases compared with 133 cases from the literature. Pediatrics 2003, 112:332-340.
• [7]van der Ploeg AT, Reuser AJ: Pompe's disease. Lancet 2008, 372:1342-1353.
• [8]Kishnani PS, Corzo D, Leslie ND, Gruskin D, Van der PA, Clancy JP, et al.: Early treatment with alglucosidase alpha prolongs long-term survival of infants with Pompe disease. Pediatr Res 2009, 66:329-335.
• [9]Kishnani PS, Goldenberg PC, DeArmey SL, Heller J, Benjamin D, Young S, et al.: Cross-reactive immunologic material status affects treatment outcomes in Pompe disease infants. Mol Genet Metab 2010, 99:26-33.
• [10]Hagemans ML, Winkel LP, van Doorn PA, Hop WJ, Loonen MC, Reuser AJ, et al.: Clinical manifestation and natural course of late-onset Pompe's disease in 54 Dutch patients. Brain 2005, 128:671-677.
• [11]van der Ploeg AT, Clemens PR, Corzo D, Escolar DM, Florence J, Groeneveld GJ, et al.: A randomized study of alglucosidase alfa in late-onset Pompe's disease. N Engl J Med 2010, 362:1396-1406.
• [12]Chien YH, Chiang SC, Zhang XK, Keutzer J, Lee NC, Huang AC, et al.: Early detection of Pompe disease by newborn screening is feasible: results from the Taiwan screening program. Pediatrics 2008, 122:e39-e45.
• [13]Chien YH, Lee NC, Thurberg BL, Chiang SC, Zhang XK, Keutzer J, et al.: Pompe disease in infants: improving the prognosis by newborn screening and early treatment. Pediatrics 2009, 124:e1116-e1125.
• [14]Chien YH, Lee NC, Huang HJ, Thurberg BL, Tsai FJ, Hwu WL: Later-onset pompe disease: early detection and early treatment initiation enabled by newborn screening. J Pediatr 2011, 158:1023-1027.
• [15]Kumamoto S, Katafuchi T, Nakamura K, Endo F, Oda E, Okuyama T, et al.: High frequency of acid alpha-glucosidase pseudodeficiency complicates newborn screening for glycogen storage disease type II in the Japanese population. Mol Genet Metab 2009, 97:190-195.
• [16]Dajnoki A, Muhl A, Fekete G, Keutzer J, Orsini J, Dejesus V, et al.: Newborn screening for Pompe disease by measuring acid alpha-glucosidase activity using tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 2008, 54:1624-1629.
• [17]Duffey TA, Bellamy G, Elliott S, Fox AC, Glass M, Turecek F, et al.: A tandem mass spectrometry triplex assay for the detection of Fabry, Pompe, and mucopolysaccharidosis-I (Hurler). Clin Chem 2010, 56:1854-1861.
• [18]Lukacs Z, Nieves CP, Mengel E, Hartung R, Beck M, Deschauer M, et al.: Diagnostic efficacy of the fluorometric determination of enzyme activity for Pompe disease from dried blood specimens compared with lymphocytes-possibility for newborn screening. J Inherit Metab Dis 2010, 33:43-50.
• [19]Kroos M, Pomponio RJ, van Vliet L, Palmer RE, Phipps M, Van der HR, et al.: Update of the Pompe disease mutation database with 107 sequence variants and a format for severity rating. Hum Mutat 2008, 29:E13-E26.
• [20]Wan L, Lee CC, Hsu CM, Hwu WL, Yang CC, Tsai CH, et al.: Identification of eight novel mutations of the acid alpha-glucosidase gene causing the infantile or juvenile form of glycogen storage disease type II. J Neurol 2008, 255:831-838.
• [21]Diagnostic criteria for late-onset (childhood and adult) Pompe disease Muscle Nerve 2009, 40:149-160.
• [22]Timmermans S, Buchbinder M: Patients-in-Waiting: Living between Sickness and Health in the Genomics Era. J Health Soc Behav 2010, 51:408-423.
• [23]Kwon JM, Steiner RD: "I'm fine; I'm just waiting for my disease": the new and growing class of presymptomatic patients. Neurology 2011, 77:522-523.
• [24]Fletcher JM: Screening for lysosomal storage disorders-a clinical perspective. J Inherit Metab Dis 2006, 29:405-408.
• [25]Kemper AR, Hwu WL, Lloyd-Puryear M, Kishnani PS: Newborn screening for Pompe disease: synthesis of the evidence and development of screening recommendations. Pediatrics 2007, 120:e1327-e1334.
• [26]Millington DS: Rapid and effective screening for lysosomal storage disease: how close are we? Clin Chem 2008, 54:1592-1594.
• [27]Tarini BA, Burke W, Scott CR, Wilfond BS: Waiving informed consent in newborn screening research: balancing social value and respect. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2008, 148C:23-30.
• [28]Cederbaum S: Newborn screening: the spigot is open and threatens to become a flood. J Pediatr 2007, 151:108-110.
• [29]Spada M, Pagliardini S, Yasuda M, Tukel T, Thiagarajan G, Sakuraba H, et al.: High incidence of later-onset fabry disease revealed by newborn screening. Am J Hum Genet 2006, 79:31-40.
• [30]Kemper AR, Knapp AA, Green NS, Comeau AM, Metterville DR, Perrin JM: Weighing the evidence for newborn screening for early-infantile Krabbe disease. Genet Med 2010, 12:539-543.
• [31]Hwu WL, Chien YH, Lee NC, Chiang SC, Dobrovolny R, Huang AC, et al.: Newborn screening for Fabry disease in Taiwan reveals a high incidence of the later-onset GLA mutation c.936 + 919 G > A (IVS4 + 919 G > A). Hum Mutat 2009, 30:1397-1405.
• [32]Detmar S, Hosli E, Dijkstra N, Nijsingh N, Rijnders M, Verweij M: Information and informed consent for neonatal screening: opinions and preferences of parents. Birth 2007, 34:238-244.
• [33]Detmar S, Dijkstra N, Nijsingh N, Rijnders M, Verweij M, Hosli E: Parental Opinions about the Expansion of the Neonatal Screening Programme. Community Genet 2008, 11:11-17.
• [34]Tarini BA, Singer D, Clark SJ, Davis MM: Parents' interest in predictive genetic testing for their children when a disease has no treatment. Pediatrics 2009, 124:e432-e438.
• [35]Plass AM, van El CG, Pieters T, Cornel MC: Neonatal screening for treatable and untreatable disorders: prospective parents' opinions. Pediatrics 2010, 125:e99-e106.
• [36]Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K: The origin and emergence of empirical ethics. In Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Edited by Widdershoven G, MacMillan J, Hope T, Van der Scheer L. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008:37-50.
• [37]Gurian EA, Kinnamon DD, Henry JJ, Waisbren SE: Expanded newborn screening for biochemical disorders: the effect of a false-positive result. Pediatrics 2006, 117:1915-1921.
• [38]Brabers AEM, Reitsma-van Rooijen M, de Jong JD: [Consumer panel for health] Consumentenpanel Gezondheidszorg. Basisrapport met informatie over het panel (2011). [http://www.nivel.nl/pdf/Rapport-Consumentenpanel-2011.pdf] webcite [Accessed Nov.2, 2011]
• [39]Central Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, the Netherlands: [Guide for writing information for research subjects] Schrijfwijzer informatiebrief voor proefpersonen. [http:/ / www.ccmo-online.nl/ hipe/ uploads/ downloads_cato/ Schrijfwijzer%20versie%203-11-08.pd f] webcite 2008. [Accessed Nov. 2, 2011]
• [40]de Jong M: Reader feedback in text design. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi BV; 1998.
• [41]Municipality of Amsterdam, Department of Research and Statistics: [New Definition of Allochtone People] Nieuwe definitie van allochtonen. [http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/pdf/2006_definitie_allochtonen.pdf] webcite 2006. [Accessed Nov.2, 2011]
• [42]Statistics Netherlands: [Working Population; sex and age] Beroepsbevolking; geslacht en leeftijd. [http:/ / statline.cbs.nl/ StatWeb/ publication/ ?DM=SLNL&PA=71738ned&D1=0,4&D2=0&D3 =0&D4=1-3&D5=46-51&HDR=T,G4,G2&STB= G3,G1&VW=T] webcite 2011. [Accessed Nov.2, 2011]
• [43]Statistics Netherlands: [Population; main statistics] Bevolking; kerncijfers. [http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37296ned&LA=NL] webcite 2010. [Accessed June 23, 2011]
• [44]Boeije HR: Analysis in Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2010.
• [45]Newcombe RG, Altman DG: Proportions and their difference. In Statistics with Confidence. 2nd edition. Edited by Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ. Bristol: British Medical Journal; 2000:45-56.
• [46]Morris JA, Gardner MJ: Epidemiological studies. In Statistics with Confidence. 2nd edition. Edited by Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ. Bristol: British Medical Journal; 2000:57-72.
• [47]Levy PA: An overview of newborn screening. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2010, 31:622-631.
• [48]Health Council of the Netherlands: Neonatal Screening. [http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/[e-mail]] webciteThe Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2005. Publication no. 2005/11
• [49]Calonge N, Green NS, Rinaldo P, Lloyd-Puryear M, Dougherty D, Boyle C, et al.: Committee report: method for evaluating conditions nominated for population-based screening of newborns and children. Genet Med 2010, 12:153-159.
• [50]Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors: Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet 2009, 17:720-721.
• [51]Burke W, Coughlin SS, Lee NC, Weed DL, Khoury MJ: Application of population screening principles to genetic screening for adult-onset conditions. Genet Test 2001, 5:201-211.