Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 1189–1203 | Cite as

Newborn screening for Pompe disease: impact on families

  • B. Pruniski
  • E. Lisi
  • N. AliEmail author
Original Article


Pompe disease (PD) is an autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder causing progressive glycogen accumulation in muscles, with variability in age of onset and severity. For infantile-onset PD (IOPD), initiation of early treatment can be life-saving; however, current newborn screening (NBS) technology cannot distinguish IOPD from late-onset PD (LOPD) without clinical workup. Therefore, families of LOPD infants diagnosed by NBS may now spend years or even decades aware of their illness before symptoms appear, creating a pre-symptomatic awareness phase with which the medical community has little experience. The present study examines the effects of receiving a positive NBS result for PD on families. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with mothers of nine children (three IOPD and six LOPD) diagnosed via NBS, exploring their experiences, understanding of PD, how they are coping, and what impact diagnosis is having on family life. Interviews were coded using MaxQDA v.12 and analyzed for thematic trends. While overall opinion of NBS was favorable, it is clear many of the concerns anticipated by HCPs, patients, and families regarding NBS for late-onset LSDs are being realized to varying degrees; LOPD families are becoming patients-in-waiting. Increased fear/anxiety and living with uncertainty (regarding diagnosis, their children’s future, and when to start treatment) were predominant themes, with all families voicing considerable emotional reactions and varied social and healthcare support concerns. Coping strategies and psychosocial challenges are interpreted using Rolland & Williams’ Family Systems Genetic Illness model. Recommendations for improvement in delivery of service, as well as families’ advice for future parents and HCPs, are discussed.



The authors would like to thank all the parents who took the time to speak with us about their lives and experiences with PD.

Funding source

No funding was received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Brianna Pruniski, M.MSc. has no conflicts of interest. She wrote the first draft of the manuscript.

Emily Lisi, M.S. has received research support from Sanofi Genzyme, Shire, Pfizer, and BioMarin and lecturers’ honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme. These activities are monitored and in compliance with the Emory University conflict of interest policies. However, no research support was received for this study.

Nadia Ali, Ph.D., has received research support from Sanofi Genzyme, Shire, BioMarin, Amicus, and Pfizer, as well as lecturers’ honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme, BioMarin, and Amicus. These activities are monitored and in compliance with the Emory University conflict of interest policies. However, no research support was received for this study.

Informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.


  1. Bodamer OA, Scott CR, Giugliani R (2017) Newborn screening for Pompe Disease. Pediatrics 140:S4–S13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouwman MG et al (2013) Fabry patients' experiences with the timing of diagnosis relevant for the discussion on newborn screening. Mol Genet Metab 109:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton BK, Charrow J, Hoganson GE, Waggoner D, Tinkle et al (2017) Newborn screening for lysosomal storage disorders in Illinois: The initial 15-month experience. J Pediatr 190:130–135Google Scholar
  4. Chien YH et al (2011) Later-onset Pompe disease: early detection and early treatment initiation enabled by newborn screening. J Pediatr 158(6):1023–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dasouki M et al (2014) Pompe disease: literature review and case series. Neurol Clin 32(3):751–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Ru MH et al (2012) Experiences of parents and patients with the timing of Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I) diagnoses and its relevance to the ethical debate on newborn screening. Mol Genet Metab 107(3):501–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desnuelle C, Salviati L (2011) Challenges in diagnosis and treatment of late-onset Pompe disease. Curr Opin Neurol 24(5):443–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubrovsky A, Corderi J, Karasarides T, Taratuto AL (2013) Pompe disease, the must-not-miss diagnosis: a report of 3 patients. Muscle Nerve 47(4):594–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eccleston P, Werneke U, Armon K, Stephenson T, MacFaul R (2001) Accounting for overlap? An application of Mezzich’s kappa. J Adv Nursing 33(6):784–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldenberg AJ, Dodson DS, Davis MM, Tarini BA (2014) Parents’ interest in whole-genome sequencing of newborns. Genet Med 16(1):78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hobson-Webb LD, Kishnani PS (2012) How common is misdiagnosis in late-onset Pompe disease? Muscle Nerve 45(2):301–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hopkins P et al (2015) Lysosomal storage disorder screening implementation: findings from the first six months of full population pilot testing in Missouri. J Pediatr 66(1):172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khan CM, Rini C, Bernhardt BA, Roberts JS, Christensen KD et al (2015) How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing? J Genet Couns 24(2):193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lisi E, Gillespie S, Laney DA, Ali N (2016) Do the benefits outweigh the harms? Assessing patients’ perceptions on newborn screening for late-onset lysosomal storage diseases. Mol Genet Metab 119:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lisi E, McCandless S (2015) Newborn screening for lysosomal storage disorders: views of genetic healthcare providers. J Genet Counsel.
  16. Matern D, Gavrilov D, Oglesbee D, Raymond K, Rinaldo P, Tortorelli S (2015) Newborn screening for lysosomal storage disorders. Semin Perinatol 39:206–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mays N, Pope C (2000) Assessing quality of qualitative research. Br Med J 320:50–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mezzich J, Kraemer H, Worthington D, Coffman G (1981) Assessment of agreement among several raters formulating multiple diagnoses. J Psychiatr Res 16:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Preisler N, Lukacs Z, Vinge L, Madsen KL, Husu E, Hansen RS et al (2013) Late-onset Pompe disease is prevalent in unclassified limb-girdle muscular dystrophies. Mol Genet Metab 110(3):287–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roach ES (2017) The dreadful knowledge of truth: newborn screening in the modern age. Pediatr Neurol 77:3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rolland J, Williams J (2005) Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st-century genetics. Fam Process 44(1):3–24Google Scholar
  22. Ross LF (2012) Newborn screening for lysosomal storage diseases: an ethical and policy analysis. J Inherit Metab Dis 35:627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ross LF, Clarke AJ (2017) A historical and current review of newborn screening for neuromuscular disorders from around the world: lessons for the United States. Pediatr Neurol 77:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt J et al (2012) The impact of false-positive newborn screening results on families: a qualitative study. Genet Med 14(1):76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Timmermans S, Buchbinder M (2010) Patients-in-waiting: living between sickness and health in the genomics era. J Health Soc Behav 51(4):408–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Timmermans S, Buchbinder M (2011) Improving expanded newborn screening: a reply to Watson, Howell, and Rinaldo. J Health Soc Behav 52(2):279–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van El CG, Rigter T, Reuser AJJ, van der Ploeg AT et al (2014) Newborn screening for Pompe disease? A qualitative study exploring professional views. BMC Pediatr 14:203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watson MS, Howell RR, Rinaldo P (2011) A disservice to advances in newborn genetic screening: comment on Timmermans and Buchbinder. J Health Soc Behav 52(2):277–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weinreich SS et al (2012) Public support for neonatal screening for Pompe disease, a broad-phenotype condition. Orphanet J Rare Dis 7:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson JM, Jungner G (1968) Principles and practices of screening for disease. Public Health Papers No. 34. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SSIEM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human GeneticsEmory University School of MedicineDecaturUSA
  2. 2.Division of Genetics & MetabolismPhoenix Children’s Medical GroupPhoenixUSA
  3. 3.Center for Individualized MedicineMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations