Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities.

Cancer predictive or diagnostic assays, offered as Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs), have been subject to regulatory authority and enforcement discretion by the US Food and Drug Administration. Many LDTs enter the market without US Food and Drug Administration or any regulatory review. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments focuses on analytic performance, but has limited oversight of the quality or utility of LDTs, including whether patients have been harmed as a result of their use. Increasingly, LDTs for cancer risk or early detection have been marketed directly to consumers, with many LDT developers depicting these tests, requested by patients but ordered by personal or company-associated physicians, as procedures falling under the practice of medicine. This patchwork of regulation and enforcement uncertainty regarding LDTs and public concerns about accuracy of tests given emergency authorization during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT (in vitro clinical test) Development Act of 2021. This pending federal legislation represents an opportunity to harmonize regulatory policies and address growing concerns over quality, utility, and safety of LDTs for cancer genomics, including tests marketed directly to consumers. We review here questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of some cancer-related LDTs for cancer risk and presymptomatic molecular diagnosis, increasingly marketed to oncologists or directly to the worried well. We offer specific proposals to strengthen oversight of the accuracy and clinical utility of cancer genetic testing to ensure public safety.

Utility of Newborn Dried Blood Spots to Ascertain Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Among Individuals Giving Birth in New York State, November 2019 to November 2021.

Importance: Serosurveys can be used to monitor population-level dynamics of COVID-19 and vaccination. Dried blood spots (DBSs) collected from infants contain maternal IgG antibodies and are useful for serosurveys of individuals recently giving birth. Objectives: To examine SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in pregnant individuals in New York State, identify associations between SARS-CoV-2 antibody status and maternal and infant characteristics, and detect COVID-19 vaccination among this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A population-based, repeated cross-sectional study was conducted to detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) IgG antibodies. Deidentified DBS samples and data submitted to the New York State Newborn Screening Program between November 1, 2019, and November 30, 2021, were analyzed. Exposures: Prenatal exposure to SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The presence of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 N and S antigens was measured using a microsphere immunoassay. Data were analyzed by geographic region and compared with reported COVID-19 cases and vaccinations among reproductive-aged females (15-44 years of age). Data were stratified by infant birth weight, gestational age, maternal age, and multiple birth status. Results: Dried blood spot samples from 415 293 infants (median [IQR] age, 1.04 [1.00-1.20] days; 210 805 [51.1%] male) were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The first known antibody-positive infant in New York State was born on March 29, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence reflected statewide and regional COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged females in the prevaccine period. From February through November 2021, S seroprevalence was strongly correlated with cumulative vaccinations in each New York State region and in the state overall (rs = 0.92-1.00, P ≤ .001). S and N seroprevalences were significantly lower in newborns with very low birth weight (720 [14.8%] for S and 138 [2.8%] for N, P < .001) and low birth weight (5160 [19.3%] for S and 1233 [4.6%] for N, P = .009) compared with newborns with normal birth weight (77 116 [20.1%] for S and 19 872 [5.2%] for N). Lower N and higher S seroprevalences were observed in multiple births (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; P = .002 for N and OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.31; P < .001 for S) vs single births and for maternal age older than 30 years (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001 for N and OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23; P < .001 for S) vs younger than 20 years. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, seroprevalence in newborn DBS samples reflected COVID-19 case fluctuations and vaccinations among reproductive-aged women during the study period. These results demonstrate the utility of using newborn DBS testing to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in pregnant individuals.

Improving Recruitment for a Newborn Screening Pilot Study with Adaptations in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Seven months after the launch of a pilot study to screen newborns for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) in New York State, New York City became an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. All in-person research activities were suspended at the study enrollment institutions of Northwell Health and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospitals, and study recruitment was transitioned to 100% remote. Pre-pandemic, all recruitment was in-person with research staff visiting the postpartum patients 1-2 days after delivery to obtain consent. With the onset of pandemic, the multilingual research staff shifted to calling new mothers while they were in the hospital or shortly after discharge, and consent was collected via emailed e-consent links. With return of study staff to the hospitals, a hybrid approach was implemented with in-person recruitment for babies delivered during the weekdays and remote recruitment for babies delivered on weekends and holidays, a cohort not recruited pre-pandemic. There was a drop in the proportion of eligible babies enrolled with the transition to fully remote recruitment from 64% to 38%. In addition, the proportion of babies enrolled after being approached dropped from 91% to 55%. With hybrid recruitment, the proportion of eligible babies enrolled (70%) and approached babies enrolled (84%) returned to pre-pandemic levels. Our experience adapting our study during the COVID-19 pandemic led us to develop new recruitment strategies that we continue to utilize. The lessons learned from this pilot study can serve to help other research studies adapt novel and effective recruitment methods.

COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Impacts on Newborn Screening Public Health Surveillance.

Newborn screening (NBS) is an essential public health service that performs screening to identify those newborns at increased risk for a panel of disorders, most of which are genetic. The goal of screening is to link those newborns at the highest risk to timely intervention and potentially life-saving treatment. The global COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions within the United States public health system, revealing implications for the continuity of newborn screening laboratories and follow-up operations. The impacts of COVID-19 across different states at various time points meant that NBS programs impacted by the pandemic later could benefit from the immediate experiences of the earlier impacted programs. This article will review the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information during the COVID-19 pandemic facilitated by a national, centralized technical assistance and resource center for NBS programs.

Improving Recruitment for a Newborn Screening Pilot Study with Adaptations in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Seven months after the launch of a pilot study to screen newborns for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) in New York State, New York City became an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. All in-person research activities were suspended at the study enrollment institutions of Northwell Health and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospitals, and study recruitment was transitioned to 100% remote. Pre-pandemic, all recruitment was in-person with research staff visiting the postpartum patients 1–2 days after delivery to obtain consent. With the onset of pandemic, the multilingual research staff shifted to calling new mothers while they were in the hospital or shortly after discharge, and consent was collected via emailed e-consent links. With return of study staff to the hospitals, a hybrid approach was implemented with in-person recruitment for babies delivered during the weekdays and remote recruitment for babies delivered on weekends and holidays, a cohort not recruited pre-pandemic. There was a drop in the proportion of eligible babies enrolled with the transition to fully remote recruitment from 64% to 38%. In addition, the proportion of babies enrolled after being approached dropped from 91% to 55%. With hybrid recruitment, the proportion of eligible babies enrolled (70%) and approached babies enrolled (84%) returned to pre-pandemic levels. Our experience adapting our study during the COVID-19 pandemic led us to develop new recruitment strategies that we continue to utilize. The lessons learned from this pilot study can serve to help other research studies adapt novel and effective recruitment methods.