Newborn screening programmes in Europe; arguments and efforts regarding harmonization. Part 1 - From blood spot to screening result

In many European countries neonatal screening has been introduced over the last 50 years as an important public health programme. Depending on health care structure, available funds, local politics, input from professional groups, parent groups, and the general public this introduction has led to different approaches in the way the screening programmes have been set up, financed and governed. To get some insight about the current situation, in 2009 the European Union, via its EAHC agency, put out a call for a tender that was acquired by our project group. An online survey was compiled in which the whole screening programme was covered by a questionnaire. This survey covered the EU member states, (potential) candidate member states and EFTA countries, in total 40 countries. Results showed little consensus concerning 1. information of parents including informed consent; 2. which conditions are screened for, ranging from 1 to around 30 conditions; 3. sampling time post partum; 4. screening methodology including cut-offs values even between screening laboratories within countries.; 5. storage of residual specimens, varying from 3 months to 1000 years. In addition, confirmatory diagnostics and follow-up also show large discrepancies (Burgard et al. http://www.iss.it/cnmr/prog/cont.php?id=1621&lang=1&tipo=64 2011). In addition to the current practices report an expert opinion document has been produced with recommendations to the EU Commission for future improvements, e.g. in parallel to the way the USA has harmonized its practices based on recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics (Watson et al., Pediatrics 117: S296-S307, 2006).

[1]  Mark S. Blumberg,et al.  Evaluating Health Screening Procedures , 1957 .

[2]  M. Petros Revisiting the Wilson-Jungner criteria: How can supplemental criteria guide public health in the era of genetic screening? , 2011, Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.

[3]  I. Harting,et al.  Use of guidelines improves the neurological outcome in glutaric aciduria type I , 2010, Annals of neurology.

[4]  Ja Wilson,et al.  Principles and practice of screening for disease , 1968 .

[5]  S. Rivkees,et al.  Guidelines for the Development of Comprehensive Care Centers for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia: Guidance from the CARES Foundation Initiative , 2010, International journal of pediatric endocrinology.

[6]  Grazyna Adamiak,et al.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed , 2006 .

[7]  P. V. van Dyck,et al.  A Look at Newborn Screening: Today and Tomorrow , 2006, Pediatrics.

[8]  S. Paisley,et al.  Clinical-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: A systematic review , 2004, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[9]  O. Bodamer,et al.  Expanded newborn screening in Europe 2007 , 2007, Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease.

[10]  M. Durán,et al.  Diagnosis and management of glutaric aciduria type I – revised recommendations , 2011, Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease.

[11]  J. Gray,et al.  Screening: Evidence and Practice , 2019 .

[12]  Michael S. Watson,et al.  Newborn Screening: Toward a Uniform Screening Panel and System—Executive Summary , 2006, Pediatrics.

[13]  A. Kemper,et al.  Completeness and Complexity of Information Available to Parents From Newborn-Screening Programs , 2005, Pediatrics.

[14]  O. Sommerburg,et al.  European best practice guidelines for cystic fibrosis neonatal screening. , 2009, Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society.

[15]  Janice Fletcher,et al.  Expanded Newborn Screening: Outcome in Screened and Unscreened Patients at Age 6 Years , 2009, Pediatrics.

[16]  M. Leichsenring,et al.  Efficacy and outcome of expanded newborn screening for metabolic diseases - Report of 10 years from South-West Germany * , 2011, Orphanet journal of rare diseases.

[17]  A. Kemper,et al.  What questions should newborn screening long-term follow-up be able to answer? A statement of the US Secretary for Health and Human Services' Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[18]  C. Rembold Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening , 1998, BMJ.

[19]  B. Wilcken Newborn screening: how are we travelling, and where should we be going? , 2011, Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease.

[20]  R. Pollitt,et al.  Introducing new screens: Why are we all doing different things? , 2007, Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease.

[21]  N. Holtzman Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism. , 1978, Pediatric clinics of North America.

[22]  J. Loeber,et al.  Neonatal screening in Europe; the situation in 2004 , 2007, Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease.

[23]  D. Taruscio,et al.  Newborn screening programmes in Europe; arguments and efforts regarding harmonization. Part 2 – From screening laboratory results to treatment, follow-up and quality assurance , 2012, Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease.

[24]  A. Ribes,et al.  Natural History, Outcome, and Treatment Efficacy in Children and Adults with Glutaryl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency , 2006, Pediatric Research.