It seems like a great idea. We all have our genomes sequenced at birth, and any findings that suggest a future medical problem are addressed with early interventions, optimizing our health and extending our lives. But are parents of newborns ready to embrace the vision? Yes and no, according to interim results of a first-of-its-kind randomized trial of newborn sequencing. Findings from what’s known as the BabySeq Project were presented last week at the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) 2016 Annual Meeting. …
Medical solutions often require countless hours of investigation, months of testing and monitoring, years of post-trial and market analysis and billions of dollars of investment — with no certainty of success.
Last year, after years of groundwork, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 21st Century Cures Act. A companion measure is being developed in the Senate, and stakeholders are optimistic that agreement on a package — even a slimmed down bill — could happen this year.
While Congress has addressed research and medical product regulatory needs before, the Cures Act has been unique in its comprehensive approach, looking at all elements of the research spectrum — from basic discovery science to translational research to regulatory review. It would upgrade the National Institutes of Health’s research capabilities and update the Food and Drug Administration’s approval policies to get new drugs and devices to the clinic sooner. …
Typically, when you enroll in a study, it’s not with the expectation that you will receive results. In genomics studies, it’s becoming common to give families the option to get individual results — the newborn sequencing study, Baby Seq, is just one example — as an incentive to participate. Families of children with rare disease, especially undiagnosed illnesses, need no incentive: they’re desperate for answers.
But how do families actually feel once they get genetic results? We conducted interviews with nine rare disease parents (six mothers, three fathers) whose children were enrolled at the hospital’s Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research. What we found is more complexity than we expected. …
Unintentional injuries are the fifth largest cause of death in the U.S., and these mortalities have been rising over the past decade. At the same time, more people are living in areas with high poverty levels. Are these trends connected?
An analysis published last week in PLOS One gives evidence that the answer is “yes.” Emergency medicine physician Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues crunched U.S. Census Bureau data against mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics for 1999 to 2012 — providing resolution down to the county level.
Not only did fatalities increase in tandem with the level of poverty in a county, the study found, but this effect worsened over time, especially for deaths from certain causes such as poisonings, shown here. Read the details in our sister blog, Notes. (Interactive image: Erin Horan)
At least 15 million children reside in Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs) that average fewer than one health professional for every 3,500 people. In these health care deserts, time and transportation barriers prevent even children with health insurance have trouble getting timely care, particularly specialty care. Children in poor, rural areas are most at risk.
So health problems fester and get worse — and more expensive when finally addressed.
Telehealth can solve many of these problems. Through remote video/voice/data connections, dermatologists can view images of rashes and moles sent by primary care providers; cardiologists can patch into local emergency rooms and listen to heart sounds and read EKG tracings; critical care physicians and neonatologists can see and hear newborns in distress, listen to lung sounds, read their vital signs and view images. They can advise local clinicians and guide them through next steps.
However, pediatric telehealth hasn’t been adopted as widely as it could be. A white paper presented by the Children’s Health Fund at a Congressional briefing last week enumerated the obstacles: …
Cancer remains the leading disease-related cause of death in children in the United States. Yet, when it comes to cancer research funding and drug development, pediatric cancer is often left behind, writes David A. Williams, MD, president of Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, in Boston Globe Media’s STAT.
Although there are more than 150 types of childhood cancer, pediatric cancer receives only a small fraction of NIH and National Cancer Institute funding, Williams writes. Yet, he points out, just as breakthroughs in adult cancer research can help children, breakthroughs in pediatric cancer can also benefit adults.
Williams and other members of the Coalition for Pediatric Medical Research recently met with the staff of Vice President Joseph Biden, leader of the federal government’s cancer moonshot. Their message? Make sure that pediatric cancer is represented on the moonshot.
For the first time since 1937, marijuana is legal for recreational use: adults now can legally possess it in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, and there are similar ballot initiatives in many states. With laws at least partially legalizing marijuana in 23 states and the District of Columbia, it’s now a big business. A study comparing 2012-2013 with 2001-2002 found that marijuana use had doubled over the 10 year-period. And that was three years ago.
What are the public health consequences of freely available weed — both acute and long-term? Are we making a big mistake here?
Concerned about potential harms to adolescents, Sharon Levy, MD, MPH and Elissa Weitzman, ScD, Msc, of Boston Children’s Hospital’s divisions of Developmental Medicine and Adolescent/Young Adult Medicine respectively, argue for a better, real-time marijuana surveillance system in this week’s JAMA Pediatrics. …
Most adult transplant centers require patients to walk a set distance in under six minutes to remain a good candidate for lung transplant. The thought is that if patients cannot meet this minimal threshold, then their chances of being able to rehabilitate after transplant are diminished. In pediatrics, this is also important. But Dawn Freiberger, RN, MSN, Boston Children’s Hospital’s Lung Transplant coordinator, says there are other factors that have to be considered.
“The walk test is just one piece of the pie,” says Freiberger.
In 2013, Freiberger co-authored a study, Pretransplant six-minute walk test predicts peri- and post-operative outcomes after pediatric lung transplantation, which became the precursor to a multicenter study with the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and St. Louis Children’s Hospital. The new study looks at how a child’s pre-transplant physical condition affects post-transplant outcomes. …
“Precision medicine” looks to be heading down the same path as “big data” and “innovation”: The term is becoming so widely used that it threatens to detract from the real impact it is already having in patients’ lives.
But for children, who are still developing and have the most to gain, precision medicine is more than a bumper sticker. On the micro scale, early genetic testing—perhaps routinely, someday, in newborns—can help guide medical care, targeted therapies and preventive strategies based on a child’s genetic makeup. On a macro scale, big data from the larger population becomes a predictive tool, guiding medical decisions that could be life-altering in a still-malleable child.
“If you can make an early diagnosis, you can amplify the effects of what you do, rather than try to change the highways once they’re built,” said Wendy Chung, MD, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center during a panel discussion last week at Boston Children’s Hospital’s Global Pediatric Innovation Summit + Awards (#PedInno15). …
Funding drives biomedical research, and research drives treatment innovation. Access to funds, particularly National Institute of Health (NIH) awards, is critical to move research forward. The 21st Century Cures Act, which passed the U.S. House on July 10, could give the NIH $8.75 billion more in new grants to disperse over the next five years, the largest increase since the Recovery Act of 2009.
How would those funds be used? Can research find a better way to treat patients? Prevent disease? Disseminate advances in medicine?
In 2014, Boston Children’s led the U.S. in NIH awards. Here’s a look at how a few research teams are leveraging NIH funding to improve care for both children and adults.