Analysis of educational materials and destruction/opt-out initiatives for storage and use of residual newborn screening samples.

In recent years, the storage and use of residual newborn screening (NBS) samples has gained attention. To inform ongoing policy discussions, this article provides an update of previous work on new policies, educational materials, and parental options regarding the storage and use of residual NBS samples. A review of state NBS Web sites was conducted for information related to the storage and use of residual NBS samples in January 2010. In addition, a review of current statutes and bills introduced between 2005 and 2009 regarding storage and/or use of residual NBS samples was conducted. Fourteen states currently provide information about the storage and/or use of residual NBS samples. Nine states provide parents the option to request destruction of the residual NBS sample after the required storage period or the option to exclude the sample for research uses. In the coming years, it is anticipated that more states will consider policies to address parental concerns about the storage and use of residual NBS samples. Development of new policies regarding storage and use of residual NBS samples will require careful consideration of impact on NBS programs, parent and provider educational materials, and respect for parents among other issues.

Bioluminescence imaging of glucose in tissue surrounding polyurethane and glucose sensor implants.

BACKGROUND: The bioluminescence technique was used to quantify the local glucose concentration in the tissue surrounding subcutaneously implanted polyurethane material and surrounding glucose sensors. In addition, some implants were coated with a single layer of adipose-derived stromal cells (ASCs) because these cells improve the wound-healing response around biomaterials. METHODS: Control and ASC-coated implants were implanted subcutaneously in rats for 1 or 8 weeks (polyurethane) or for 1 week only (glucose sensors). Tissue biopsies adjacent to the implant were immediately frozen at the time of explant. Cryosections were assayed for glucose concentration profile using the bioluminescence technique. RESULTS: For the polyurethane samples, no significant differences in glucose concentration within 100 μm of the implant surface were found between bare and ASC-coated implants at 1 or 8 weeks. A glucose concentration gradient was demonstrated around the glucose sensors. For all sensors, the minimum glucose concentration of approximately 4 mM was found at the implant surface and increased with distance from the sensor surface until the glucose concentration peaked at approximately 7 mM at 100 μm. Then the glucose concentration decreased to 5.5-6.5 mM more than 100 μmm from the surface. CONCLUSIONS: The ASC attachment to polyurethane and to glucose sensors did not change the glucose profiles in the tissue surrounding the implants. Although most glucose sensors incorporate a diffusion barrier to reduce the gradient of glucose and oxygen in the tissue, it is typically assumed that there is no steep glucose gradient around the sensors. However, a glucose gradient was observed around the sensors. A more complete understanding of glucose transport and concentration gradients around sensors is critical.