New developments in the treatment and management of phenylketonuria (PKU) as well as advances in molecular testing have emerged since the National Institutes of Health 2000 PKU Consensus Statement was released. An NIH State-of-the-Science Conference was convened in 2012 to address new findings, particularly the use of the medication sapropterin to treat some individuals with PKU, and to develop a research agenda. Prior to the 2012 conference, five working groups of experts and public members met over a 1-year period. The working groups addressed the following: long-term outcomes and management across the lifespan; PKU and pregnancy; diet control and management; pharmacologic interventions; and molecular testing, new technologies, and epidemiologic considerations. In a parallel and independent activity, an Evidence-based Practice Center supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conducted a systematic review of adjuvant treatments for PKU; its conclusions were presented at the conference. The conference included the findings of the working groups, panel discussions from industry and international perspectives, and presentations on topics such as emerging treatments for PKU, transitioning to adult care, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory perspective. Over 85 experts participated in the conference through information gathering and/or as presenters during the conference, and they reached several important conclusions. The most serious neurological impairments in PKU are preventable with current dietary treatment approaches. However, a variety of more subtle physical, cognitive, and behavioral consequences of even well-controlled PKU are now recognized. The best outcomes in maternal PKU occur when blood phenylalanine (Phe) concentrations are maintained between 120 and 360 μmol/L before and during pregnancy. The dietary management treatment goal for individuals with PKU is a blood Phe concentration between 120 and 360 μmol/L. The use of genotype information in the newborn period may yield valuable insights about the severity of the condition for infants diagnosed before maximal Phe levels are achieved. While emerging and established genotype-phenotype correlations may transform our understanding of PKU, establishing correlations with intellectual outcomes is more challenging. Regarding the use of sapropterin in PKU, there are significant gaps in predicting response to treatment; at least half of those with PKU will have either minimal or no response. A coordinated approach to PKU treatment improves long-term outcomes for those with PKU and facilitates the conduct of research to improve diagnosis and treatment. New drugs that are safe, efficacious, and impact a larger proportion of individuals with PKU are needed. However, it is imperative that treatment guidelines and the decision processes for determining access to treatments be tied to a solid evidence base with rigorous standards for robust and consistent data collection. The process that preceded the PKU State-of-the-Science Conference, the conference itself, and the identification of a research agenda have facilitated the development of clinical practice guidelines by professional organizations and serve as a model for other inborn errors of metabolism.

The greatest opportunity for lifelong impact of genomic sequencing is during the newborn period. The “BabySeq Project” is a randomized trial that explores the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns. Families of newborns are enrolled from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital nurseries, and half are randomized to receive genomic sequencing and a report that includes monogenic disease variants, recessive carrier variants for childhood onset or actionable disorders, and pharmacogenomic variants. All families participate in a disclosure session, which includes the return of results for those in the sequencing arm. Outcomes are collected through review of medical records and surveys of parents and health care providers and include the rationale for choice of genes and variants to report; what genomic data adds to the medical management of sick and healthy babies; and the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns. The BabySeq Project will provide empirical data about the risks, benefits and costs of newborn genomic sequencing and will inform policy decisions related to universal genomic screening of newborns. The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02422511 . Registration date: 10 April 2015.

To evaluate whether there were differences in acquisition of research grant support between male and female faculty at eight Harvard Medical School-affiliated institutions. Data were obtained from the participating institutions on all research grant applications submitted by full-time faculty from 2001 through 2003. Data were analyzed by gender and faculty rank of applicant, source of support (federal or nonfederal), funding outcome, amount of funding requested, and amount of funding awarded. Data on 6319 grant applications submitted by 2480 faculty applicants were analyzed. Women represented 29% of investigators and submitted 26% of all grant requests. There were significant gender differences in the mean number of submissions per applicant (women 2.3, men 2.7), success rate (women 41%, men 45%), number of years requested (women 3.1, men 3.4), median annual amount requested (women $115,325, men $150,000), mean number of years awarded (women 2.9, men 3.2), and median annual amount awarded (women $98,094, men $125,000). After controlling for academic rank, grant success rates were not significantly different between women and men, although submission rates by women were significantly lower at the lowest faculty rank. Although there was no difference in the proportion of money awarded to money requested, women were awarded significantly less money than men at the ranks of instructor and associate professor. More men than women applied to the National Institutes of Health, which awarded higher dollar amounts than other funding sources. Gender disparity in grant funding is largely explained by gender disparities in academic rank. Controlling for rank, women and men were equally successful in acquiring grants. However, gender differences in grant application behavior at lower academic ranks also contribute to gender disparity in grant funding for medical science.