Study Advances Personalized Medicine for Newborns

12 September 2013 Personalized Medicine Bulletin Blog

Earlier this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) issued recommendations and proposed best practices for genetic testing and screening of infants and children. In Ethical and Policy Issues in Genetic Testing and Screening of Children, the AAP and ACMG reviewed the scenarios in which genetic testing or screening of minors may occur and recommended best practices for such testing (See post of March 4, 2013 for a review of the report). The University of California, South Francisco (UCSF) and UC Berkeley recently announced a pilot project that will study and address several issues raised but by the AAP and ACMG, and in particular, whether large-scale gene sequencing to detect disorders and conditions should be performed routinely for newborns. The study is one of four projects supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to evaluate the accuracy and feasibility of conducting genetic sequencing along side current newborn screening that relies on biochemical analysis. The study will also evaluate what additional information would be useful to have at birth and the ethics and public interest in conducting newborn genetic tests.

The UCSF and Berkeley study will focus on the sequencing the exome (the portion of the genome that encode proteins) and its potential to identify disorders that California currently includes in newborn screening. The study also will evaluate what additional disorders should be included in newborn screening, for example the disorders for which early intervention would be beneficial. In addition to prospective studies, the group in partnership with the California Department of Public Health, will conduct genetic analysis of blood collected from 1,400 children who received conventional newborn screening. The results will be compared to determine if genetic analysis of the samples is more accurate than conventional biochemical analysis.

In addition to collecting and analyzing the data, the group also will develop a participant protection framework for conducting genomic sequencing during infancy and will explore legal issues related to using genome analysis in newborn screening programs.

Similar NIH-supported studies are being conducted by Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

New York Expands Pay Equity Law
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
The Face of DOL is New, the Name is Not; Trump Picks Scalia for Secretary of Labor
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ