Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Early Check: translational science at the intersection of public health and newborn screening

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Newborn screening (NBS) occupies a unique space at the intersection of translational science and public health. As the only truly population-based public health program in the United States, NBS offers the promise of making the successes of translational medicine available to every infant with a rare disorder that is difficult to diagnose clinically, but for which strong evidence indicates that presymptomatic treatment will substantially improve outcomes. Realistic NBS policy requires data, but rare disorders face a special challenge: Screening cannot be done without supportive data, but adequate data cannot be collected in the absence of large-scale screening. The magnitude and scale of research to provide this expanse of data require working with public health programs, but most do not have the resources or mandate to conduct research.

          Methods

          To address this gap, we have established Early Check, a research program in partnership with a state NBS program. Early Check provides the infrastructure needed to identify conditions for which there have been significant advances in treatment potential, but require a large-scale, population-based study to test benefits and risks, demonstrate feasibility, and inform NBS policy.

          Discussion

          Our goal is to prove the benefits of a program that can, when compared with current models, accelerate understanding of diseases and treatments, reduce the time needed to consider inclusion of appropriate conditions in the standard NBS panel, and accelerate future research on new NBS conditions, including clinical trials for investigational interventions.

          Trial registration

          Clinicaltrials.gov registration # NCT03655223. Registered on August 31, 2018.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

          This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4, Art. No.: MR000013 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. Objective To identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials, and to quantify their effect on trial participation. Design Systematic review. Data sources The Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, C2-SPECTR, the National Research Register and PubMed. Most searches were undertaken up to 2010; no language restrictions were applied. Study selection Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including those recruiting to hypothetical studies. Studies on retention strategies, examining ways to increase questionnaire response or evaluating the use of incentives for clinicians were excluded. The study population included any potential trial participant (eg, patient, clinician and member of the public), or individual or group of individuals responsible for trial recruitment (eg, clinicians, researchers and recruitment sites). Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility. Results 45 trials with over 43 000 participants were included. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; two studies, 1058 participants), use of opt-out rather than opt-in procedures for contacting potential participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; one study, 152 participants) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36; two studies, 4833 participants). However, the effect of many other strategies is less clear, including the use of video to provide trial information and interventions aimed at recruiters. Conclusions There are promising strategies for increasing recruitment to trials, but some methods, such as open-trial designs and opt-out strategies, must be considered carefully as their use may also present methodological or ethical challenges. Questions remain as to the applicability of results originating from hypothetical trials, including those relating to the use of monetary incentives, and there is a clear knowledge gap with regard to effective strategies aimed at recruiters.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Shattuck lecture--clinical research to clinical practice--lost in translation?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Randomised trial of a parent‐mediated intervention for infants at high risk for autism: longitudinal outcomes to age 3 years

              Background There has been increasing interest in the potential for pre‐emptive interventions in the prodrome of autism, but little investigation as to their effect. Methods A two‐site, two‐arm assessor‐blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a 12‐session parent‐mediated social communication intervention delivered between 9 and 14 months of age (Intervention in the British Autism Study of Infant Siblings‐Video Interaction for Promoting Positive Parenting), against no intervention. Fifty‐four infants (28 intervention, 26 nonintervention) at familial risk of autism but not otherwise selected for developmental atypicality were assessed at 9‐month baseline, 15‐month treatment endpoint, and 27‐ and 39‐month follow‐up. Primary outcome: severity of autism prodromal symptoms, blind‐rated on Autism Observation Schedule for Infants or Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule 2nd Edition across the four assessment points. Secondary outcomes: blind‐rated parent–child interaction and child language; nonblind parent‐rated communication and socialisation. Prespecified intention‐to‐treat analysis combined estimates from repeated measures within correlated regressions to estimate the overall effect of the infancy intervention over time. Results Effect estimates in favour of intervention on autism prodromal symptoms, maximal at 27 months, had confidence intervals (CIs) at each separate time point including the null, but showed a significant overall effect over the course of the intervention and follow‐up period (effect size [ES] = 0.32; 95% CI 0.04, 0.60; p = .026). Effects on proximal intervention targets of parent nondirectiveness/synchrony (ES = 0.33; CI 0.04, 0.63; p = .013) and child attentiveness/communication initiation (ES = 0.36; 95% CI 0.04, 0.68; p = .015) showed similar results. There was no effect on categorical diagnostic outcome or formal language measures. Conclusions Follow‐up to 3 years of the first RCT of a very early social communication intervention for infants at familial risk of developing autism has shown a treatment effect, extending 24 months after intervention end, to reduce the overall severity of autism prodromal symptoms and enhance parent–child dyadic social communication over this period. We highlight the value of extended follow‐up and repeat assessment for early intervention trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                1-919-541-6488 , dbailey@rti.org
                lgehtland@rti.org
                melewis@rti.org
                hpeay@rti.org
                mraspa@rti.org
                sshone@rti.org
                jltaylor@rti.org
                acwheeler@rti.org
                michael.cotten@duke.edu
                nmpking@wakehealth.edu
                powellcm@med.unc.edu
                bbiesecker@rti.org
                cebishop@wakehealth.edu
                mlincolnboyea@rti.org
                mduparc@rti.org
                bharper@rti.org
                alex.kemper@nationwidechildrens.org
                lee.staceyn@gmail.com
                munch@rti.org
                kokoniewski@rti.org
                rpaquin@rti.org
                deepettit@dhhs.nc.gov
                kmporter@rti.org
                zimmerms780@gmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Pediatr
                BMC Pediatr
                BMC Pediatrics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2431
                17 July 2019
                17 July 2019
                2019
                : 19
                : 238
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000100301493, GRID grid.62562.35, Center for Newborn Screening, Ethics, and Disability Studies, RTI International, ; 3040 E. Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000000100301493, GRID grid.62562.35, RTI International, ; Seattle, WA USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7961, GRID grid.26009.3d, Duke University, ; Durham, NC USA
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2185 3318, GRID grid.241167.7, Wake Forest School of Medicine, ; Winston-Salem, NC USA
                [5 ]ISNI 0000000122483208, GRID grid.10698.36, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, ; Chapel Hill, NC USA
                [6 ]ISNI 0000000100301493, GRID grid.62562.35, RTI International, ; Washington, DC USA
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0392 3476, GRID grid.240344.5, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, ; Cincinnati, OH USA
                [8 ]ISNI 0000000100301493, GRID grid.62562.35, RTI International, ; Chesterfield, MO USA
                [9 ]ISNI 0000000100301493, GRID grid.62562.35, RTI International, ; Minneapolis, MN USA
                [10 ]North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health, Raleigh, NC USA
                Article
                1606
                10.1186/s12887-019-1606-4
                6636013
                31315600
                e90bc0a9-3d44-4d11-9480-eebf8df28fe9
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 4 April 2019
                : 30 June 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006108, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences;
                Award ID: U01TR001792
                Award ID: UL1TR001111
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009633, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development;
                Award ID: HHSN27500003
                Funded by: Asuragen
                Award ID: Not Applicable
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007441, John Merck Fund;
                Award ID: Not Applicable
                Funded by: Cure SMA
                Award ID: Not Applicable
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Pediatrics
                newborn screening,rare disorders,translational science
                Pediatrics
                newborn screening, rare disorders, translational science

                Comments

                Comment on this article