CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01162330BESTUpdated Oct 12, 2015

The Benefits Feasibility and Acceptability of Extended Screening Testing in Newborn Babies Who Are Referred for Further Hearing Assessment

An observational study in Hearing Loss and Cytomegalovirus, sponsored by Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust. Completed at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged Up to 21 Days. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-10-12.

Sponsored by Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
411
Ages
Up to 21 Days
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study will look at the feasibility and acceptability of testing newborn babies who are referred after their newborn hearing screen for an infection called congenital Cytomegalovirus (cCMV). Around 1 in every 100 to 200 babies is born with this virus, and although most remain well it causes 1 in 5 cases of childhood deafness. Knowing that a baby is infected shortly after birth could have significant benefit since a treatment is now available, but screening programs need to be feasible and acceptable. This study aims to evaluate targeted screening for cCMV by taking samples (saliva and urine) from babies who do not pass their newborn hearing screening. The investigators want to see if we can find a quick, reliable and parentally acceptable way to screen babies who fail their hearing test for this virus.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hearing Loss
  • Cytomegalovirus

Keywords

  • Screening
  • Congenital Cytomegalovirus
  • CMV
  • Hearing loss
03

In context

Hearing Loss

1,092 studies on the registry are indexed under Hearing Loss; 235 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 411 is above the median of 87 across 270 observational studies indexed under Hearing Loss.

Browse Hearing Loss studies →

Lead sponsor

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust is the lead sponsor of 65 studies on the registry; 4 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Up to 21 Days
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

This population this study examines is infants in Newcastle and South West London who are referred for more hearing tests after their neonatal hearing screen.

This cohort of patients will be offered screening tests for congenital CMV infection.

Inclusion criteria

  • All infants 'referred' for one or both ears following hospital-based newborn hearing screening in North of Tyne and South West London areas. Babies with other known causes of SNHL (e.g. hereditary) and those admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Units will be included.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Exclusions to this study will be infants with parents/guardians not willing/able to give informed consent or children known to have congenital CMV by antenatal testing or clinical features of CMV infection at birth.
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
411 participants (actual)

Groups and cohorts

  • Babies referred for further hearing tests

    Babies referred for further hearing tests after their neonatal hearing screening tests

    Other: Screening urine and saliva tests for congenital Cytomegalovirus

Interventions

  • OtherScreening urine and saliva tests for congenital Cytomegalovirus

    With consent for the study babies who are referred for further hearing tests will have a urine and saliva sample sent to be analysed for CMV infection

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Feasibility of targeted screening for congenital CMV

    Feasibility: as determined by proportion of urine and salivary swabs processed with a result back to parents and health professionals that would allow treatment if needed to be initiated by 28 days of age.

    Time frame: 30 months

  2. Acceptability of extended screening tests

    Parental acceptability as determined by anxiety measures (in comparison to published data in parents whose infants are referred for failing their hearing screen, but where no mention of extended screening is made) and parental responses to extended questionnaires about the ease of the process of obtaining samples.

    Time frame: 30 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Clinical utility of extended screening tests

    Secondary outcomes. Assess and compare the clinical utility of performing salivary and urine CMV testing on babies referred through NHSP in terms of: 1. rate of diagnosis of cCMV by day 21 2. rate of initiation of treatment, where clinically indicated, by 4 weeks of age. 2. Calculate the prevalence of cCMV in children with SNHL detected following newborn hearing screening (number per population screened)

    Time frame: 30 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Hospital NHS Trust
    Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE1 4LP, United Kingdom
08

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 12, 2015, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01162330
Lead sponsor
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 14, 2010
Start date
Aug 2010
Primary completion
Feb 2013
Completion
Feb 2013
Last update
Oct 12, 2015

Study contacts

Julia Clark
study chair · Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust
Janet Berrington
principal investigator · Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust
Mike Sharland
principal investigator · St Georges Healthcare Trust
Suzanne Luck
principal investigator · Royal Free Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion