1 / 38

Genetic testing and screening: newborn Screening and prenatal Testing/Screening

Genetic testing and screening: newborn Screening and prenatal Testing/Screening. Sonia M. Suter, M.S., J.D. Assoc. Prof. of Law George Washington University. Overview of Talk . History of NBS Issues Associated with NBS Prenatal Testing and Screening (“PTS”)

savea
Télécharger la présentation

Genetic testing and screening: newborn Screening and prenatal Testing/Screening

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Genetic testing and screening:newborn Screening and prenatalTesting/Screening Sonia M. Suter, M.S., J.D. Assoc. Prof. of Law George Washington University

  2. Overview of Talk • History of NBS • Issues Associated with NBS • Prenatal Testing and Screening (“PTS”) • Routinization of PTS and Its Implications

  3. Newborn Screening • Most systematic form of genetic screening • Began with PKU in 1960s, broad expansion • Public health program • To identify diseases where early intervention can reduce/eliminate mortality, morbidity, disability • More than testing, whole system • Legislatively implemented • NBS legislation in every state • State-by-state variation

  4. PKU screening • Phenylketonuria (PKU) • Autosomal recessive metabolic disorder • MR unless eliminate phenylalanine from diet • Initially, not legislated or through health dept. • Strong advocacy for mandatory legislation • Reluctance of individual physicians to test • Most states mandated screening, early 60s • 43 had formal statutes by 1973 • Health dept NBS units in 1960s and 70s

  5. Beyond PKU • Broader range of screening tests • 1960s: galactosemia, maple syrup urine disease, homocystinuria • 1970s: congenital hypothyroidism • 1980s: sickle cell disease • Practice NBS varies from state to state • Great lack of uniformity diseases screened for • Usually tested for handful of conditions

  6. NBS today • Technological advances • From one assay per condition • To tandem mass spectrometry: > 40 conditions • Move toward uniform panel of disorder • ACMG recommended panel of 29 core disorders • 25 secondary conditions detected incidentally • Consensus toward much broader testing • Every state does or will test for > 30 conditions • Some up to 57 (limited knowledge/treatment)

  7. Issues in NbS • Screening criteria • Mandatory or elective? • Storage of samples • Inequities of system • Pressures toward ever expansive screening • Risks associated with expansion

  8. 1) Screening Criteria • Scientific considerations • Validity of test • Efficacy of available treatments • Political considerations • Relevance of cost: test, dollars saved, etc. • Advocacy groups • Ethical considerations • Communitarian v. individualistic perspective

  9. Screening Criteria • Benefit to newborn (> 40 years) • Effective treatment or early intervention • Natural history of disease adequately understood • Benefit to family • Enhances reproductive decision making • Benefit to society • Learn about natural history of disease • Whether technology allows screening • Screen unless compelling reason not to • Cost/benefit analysis • Rare diseases: screening cost/detection large

  10. 2) Mandatory or elective? • Legal/ethical principle of consent • Treatment of children requires parental consent • But public health paradigm: • mandatory if condition poses threat to others • Governmental authority to mandate? • Police power: • Power to regulate for public welfare • Parens patriae: • Power to act as parent for those in need of protection

  11. Norm Has been Mandatory • 48 states mandate NBS • All but 4 have opt out for religious reasons • Some allow opt out for any reason • Few parents actually opt out (or realize option) • 3 require informed parental consent

  12. Rationale for Mandatory • Urgent need for early diagnosis • Benefit of treatment • Risks of testing/treatment minimal • Practical way to ensure kids tested • Few acceptable reasons to decline • More cost effective

  13. Arguments Against Mandatory • Police power inapt • Doesn’t fit public health model • Threat to future children? • Parens patriae inapt • Limit on state’s ability to override parental choices • Not clear decisions always based on concern for child • State often doesn’t provide treatment • Goes against norm of parental consent • Comparable to other risks parents may take • Very few decline when consent required • Better follow up if parents informed

  14. Consent v. informed consent? • Is informed consent an absolute? • Is informed consent too costly? • Compromise – limited disclosure? • That child has been screened for several diseases • Need to follow-up positive result immediately • Let parents know where they can get more info • If positive result, some information re: disease • Confirmed diagnosis, detailed information

  15. 3) Storage of Blood Spots • Retention time varies from state to state • Some indefinitely, some only months • Legal uses of samples varies • Need for adequate confidentiality protection • Potential research source • Valuable national repository of genetic material • Must consent be provided? If anonymized? • Mandatory nature complicates question

  16. 4) Inequities of NBS • State-by-state practices source of inequity • Variation in test panels across states • Services received by families varies • Costs of various elements of screening varies • Technical decisions about cut-off for positive

  17. 5) Pressures to expand NBS • Moving toward broader notion of benefit • Incidental identification of diseases • Technological imperative • Consistent with personalized medicine • Knowledge is power, is responsible • Strong pressure from parents/support groups

  18. 6) Risks of such expansion • Identify diseases with no benefit/ knowledge • Increased risk of false positives/negatives • Increased incidental findings • Even greater burden on infrastructure

  19. a) Untreatable conditions • “Sick child” label • Stigmatization • Impact on parent-child relationship/ family • Treatment odyssey • Unnecessary use of dollars • Severity can vary, so why not wait until symptoms and diagnosis?

  20. b) False Negatives/ Positives • False negatives • Risk at various levels of program • False reassurance: will physicians be less likely to make diagnosis than if no screening? • False positives • Anxiety, confusion, uncertainty • Mislabeling children as ill • Clinically insignificant positives, if don’t know natural history of disease

  21. Legal aspects of False positives/negatives [out?] • False negatives: possible malpractice claim • But questions of governmental immunity • E.g., formulation testing standards • Must show lack of due care and • would have received treatment if diagnosed • False positives: legal remedy unlikely • Damages likely to be emotional distress • Law reluctant to recognize pure emotional distress

  22. C) Incidental findings • E.g., MS/MS identifies core diseases and incidentally finds others (secondary group) • Or identify carrier child, unaffected • Should these be reported to families? • What considerations? • Treatment • Knowledge of natural history of disease • Sensitivity/specificity • Costs: stigmatization, treatment odyssey • Benefits: family planning

  23. D) Enhances systemic burdens • Education HCPs and families • Technical issues associated with new tests • F/U to diagnosis to treatment each disease • Long-term treatment and management • An inadequate infrastructure -> risk of • Failure to detect • Failure to F/U or • Failure to treat

  24. prenatal Testing/ Screening • Another area of with fairly long history • Not explicit health program like NBS • No system of legislation like NBS • Voluntary • But expansion and routinization of PTS

  25. Prenatal Testing/Screening • Prenatal Testing • Amniocentesis: 16-18 weeks • CVS: 10-12 weeks • Ultrasound • Prenatal Screening • Trisomies • PAPP-A and US: 11-14 weeks • Triple or quadruple screen: (15-20 weeks) • Neural Tube defects • AFP (15-20 weeks) • Ultrasound

  26. Issues of PTS • Must be voluntary • Consent must be informed • But increasingly routinized • Pressures toward testing • True choice is more limited • Informed consent may be inadequate, especially with prenatal screening • Implications of routinization with expansion of range of tests

  27. Routinization of PTS • Societal norms • Pressures from medical profession • Legal pressures

  28. Societal norms • Sense of moral obligation to screen/test • Good parents test – “doing what’s best” • Limited understanding of limits of tests • Limited understanding of limits of options • Belief medically required • Desire for control and reassurance • Sense of knowledge as power • May be some desire for “quality control,” especially if increase range of testing abilities

  29. Medical Pressures • Value of knowledge • Preparation for delivery • Helps family prepare • Implied values simply in offering test • Personal biases in favor of knowledge?

  30. Legal pressures • Best protection against wrongful birth suit to have tested and disclosed results • Creates incentive to pressure patients to screen/test • Fear of liability led to ACOG alert: • “Imperative” to advise every OB patient of MSAFP screening 1985 • In spite of uncertain value • Created new standard of care

  31. Legal pressures • CA mandate to offer MSAFP screening • National goal to screen 90% pregnant women • Study of providers and patients found • Providers encouraged or pushed screening • Repeated offer when patients refused • Some told patient to take test • Limited discussion of meaning/purpose • Very general description of conditions screened for • Didn’t explain options/decisions if positive • Didn’t explain voluntary • Many patients didn’t understand it was voluntary

  32. Legal Pressures • 2007 ACOG Recommendations: • Down syndrome screening should be offered to all women regardless of age < 20 weeks • Advised that all women should have option of diagnostic testing regardless of age • Neural tube screening mid-trimester for women who elect only first-trimester screening for DS • Recognizes decision to have amnio/CVS based on many factors • Affects standard of care, legally • Will these recommendations be incentive to push rather than merely offer tests?

  33. Implications of Routinization • Limits choice • Anxiety • Weakens informed consent • Impact on disabled community • Limits broader social discussion about moral implications of new and future PTS

  34. Weakens Informed Consent • Limited time to discuss options • Move from genetics centers to OB offices • Prenatal screening becomes one of multiple tests • Limited discussion about • Meaning of screening • Conditions screened for • Possibility of false positives • Whether screening accords with patients’ values • Possibility of termination (reluctance to discuss)

  35. Limited Choice and Anxiety • Limits Choice • Patients don’t understand they have choice • Pressures from health care professionals may be difficult to resist • Anxiety with screening false positives even after normal amniocentesis • Didn’t understand screening v. testing • Believed positive results meant diagnosis • Convinced something must be wrong • Hadn’t considered need for further testing

  36. Impact on Disabled Community • Routinization of PTS is potentially stigmatizing to the disabled community • Suggests social consensus about elimination of certain conditions through termination • Reduces complexity of the decisions • Presumptions about quality of life and meaning of disability • Focus on eliminating disabilities, draws attention away from disabling social barriers

  37. Moral Implications • Medicalizes difficult personal, moral decisions about reproduction • Suggests neutrality of the information, and masks the moral dimensions of choices • As possibility increases to use PTS for traits, society must grapple with moral issues • If we treat as “neutral” knowledge more difficult

  38. Final Points • Adhering to recommended principles of screening with NBS and prenatal screening? • Programs should be voluntary • Should have a federal agency to oversee and standardize screening programs • Evidence of substantial public benefit • Benefits outweigh costs • Means of evaluation of program established • Investigative pre-test • 1975 “Genetic Screening: Programs, Principles and Research • NBS may have been less successful • Prenatal isn’t treated under public health model

More Related