Download PDF
Journal of Pediatric Biochemistry 2016; 06(01): 066-070
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1582225
Review Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Expanded Newborn Screening: A Chess Board Motif in Public Health

Agata Polizzi
1   National Centre for Rare Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Roma, Italy
,
Pietro Carbone
1   National Centre for Rare Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Roma, Italy
,
Domenica Taruscio
1   National Centre for Rare Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Roma, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

02 December 2015

15 January 2016

Publication Date:
04 May 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) include a large number of genetic disorders caused by lack of functional proteins that result in a blockage of the corresponding metabolic pathway essential for cellular life. IEM are rare or even very rare conditions, whereas with a collective incidence comprised from 1:800 to 1:2,500 live births. Approximately half of all IEM can be treated biochemically, although the success of such treatment is variable. IEM (especially in the neonatal age) may have a rapid evolution to severe and irreversible neurological and mental deficits, coma, and death. Early diagnosis, allowing presymptomatic treatment, can ameliorate prognosis, prevent severe permanent sequelae, and in certain cases avoid death. To ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up, preventive medicine have implemented for IEM screening programs as a powerful tool of secondary prevention. In this respect, expanded newborn screening programs have increased dramatically in the past decade although the number of diseases included in the screening panel varies from state to state. As a consequence, some nations screen for only one or two IEM, some others for several more (up to a few dozen IEM) leading to an inequality of preventive measures in such as delicate fields. Criteria to support and include screening for a specific condition in each country stand from legislation, financial costs prevalence of the disease in that country, availability of treatments, and dedicated funding sources. Currently, lack of sound and complete evidence, as well as different interpretations of the best evidence available, could also be among the factors contributing to the different screening panels across diverse countries worldwide. Within this view, the recommendable approach to assess current newborn screening programs should be based on the methodologies of health technology assessment, taking into account health economics evidence and ethics applied to well-being policies.

Keywords

expanded newborn screening - inborn errors of metabolism - rare diseases - prevention
 

  • References

  • 1 Vernon HJ. Inborn errors of metabolism: Advances in diagnosis and therapy. JAMA Pediatr 2015; 169 (8) 778-782
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Sanderson S, Green A, Preece MA, Burton H. The incidence of inherited metabolic disorders in the West Midlands, UK. Arch Dis Child 2006; 91 (11) 896-899
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Polizzi A, Balsamo A, Bal MO, Taruscio D. Rare diseases research and practice. Endocr Dev 2014; 27: 234-256
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ginocchio VM, Brunetti-Pierri N. Progress toward improved therapies for inborn errors of metabolism. Hum Mol Genet 2015;
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sparks SE. Update on newborn screening. N C Med J 2013; 74 (6) 514-517
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Guthrie R, Susi A. A simple phenylalanine method for detecting phenylketonuria in large populations of newborn infants. Pediatrics 1963; 32: 338-343
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Illig R, Torresani T, Sobradillo B. Early detection of neonatal hypothyroidism by serial TSH determination in dried blood. Six months experience with a reliable, efficient and inexpensive method. Helv Paediatr Acta 1977; 32 (4–5) 289-297
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Millington DS, Kodo N, Norwood DL, Roe CR. Tandem mass spectrometry: a new method for acylcarnitine profiling with potential for neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism. J Inherit Metab Dis 1990; 13 (3) 321-324
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Seashore MR. Tandem spectrometry in newborn screening. Curr Opin Pediatr 1998; 10 (6) 609-614
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 la Marca G. Mass spectrometry in clinical chemistry: the case of newborn screening. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2014; 101: 174-182
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 McCabe ER, Huang SZ, Seltzer WK, Law ML. DNA microextraction from dried blood spots on filter paper blotters: potential applications to newborn screening. Hum Genet 1987; 75 (3) 213-216
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Dobrowolski SF, Banas RA, Naylor EW, Powdrill T, Thakkar D. DNA microarray technology for neonatal screening. Acta Paediatr Suppl 1999; 88 (432) 61-64
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Caggana M, Jones EA, Shahied SI, Tanksley S, Hermerath CA, Lubin IM. Newborn screening: from Guthrie to whole genome sequencing. Public Health Rep 2013; 128 (Suppl. 02) 14-19
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lefterova MI, Shen P, Odegaard JI , et al. Next-Generation molecular testing of newborn dried blood spots for Cystic Fibrosis. J Mol Diagn 2016; 18 (2) 267-282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Wilcken B, Wiley V, Hammond J, Carpenter K. Screening newborns for inborn errors of metabolism by tandem mass spectrometry. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (23) 2304-2312
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Marsden D, Levy H. Newborn screening of lysosomal storage disorders. Clin Chem 2010; 56 (7) 1071-1079
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ , et al. Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome. Health Technol Assess 1997; 1 (7) i-iv , 1–202
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (12) iii , 1–121
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Fischer KE, Rogowski WH. Funding decisions for newborn screening: a comparative review of 22 decision processes in Europe. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11 (5) 5403-5430
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Fischer KE, Grosse SD, Rogowski WH. The role of health technology assessment in coverage decisions on newborn screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27 (4) 313-321
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Watson MS, Mann MY, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Rinaldo P, Howell RR. Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet Med 2006; 8 (Suppl. 01) 1S-252S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kemper AR, Green NS, Calonge N , et al. Decision-making process for conditions nominated to the recommended uniform screening panel: statement of the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. Genet Med 2014; 16 (2) 183-187
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Seymour CA, Thomason MJ, Chalmers RA , et al. Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1997; 1 (11) i-iv , 1–95
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Scaturro G, Sanfilippo C, Piccione M, Piro E, Giuffrè M, Corsello G. Newborn screening of inherited metabolic disorders by tandem mass spectrometry: past, present and future. Pediatr Med Chir 2013; 35 (3) 105-109
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Carbone P, Polizzi A, Sanseverino A, Granata O, Taruscio D and Expanded Newborn Screening Working Group. Newborn screening system for congenital disorders in Italy: a nation-wide analysis. Proceedings from the VIII International Conference on Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs (ICORD). St. Petersburg (Russia), October 31–November 2, 2013. Rare Dis Orphan Drugs 2014; 1S: 24
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 European Commission. Legal basis of EU policy. Council recommendation on action in the field of rare diseases. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:151:0007:0010:EN:PDF . Accessed April 18, 2016
    PubMed
  • 27 Cornel MC, Rigter T, Weinreich SS , et al. A framework to start the debate on neonatal screening policies in the EU: an Expert Opinion Document. Eur J Hum Genet 2014; 22 (1) 12-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Loeber JG, Burgard P, Cornel MC , et al. Newborn screening programmes in Europe; arguments and efforts regarding harmonization. Part 1. From blood spot to screening result. J Inherit Metab Dis 2012; 35 (4) 603-611
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Burgard P, Rupp K, Lindner M , 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. J Inherit Metab Dis 2012; 35 (4) 613-625
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Diseases. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Public Health Papers, No. 34; 1968
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Cerone R, Cassanello M, Caruso U, Schiaffino MC, Lorini R. Neonatal screening for congenital errors of metabolism by means of Tandem Mass: Italian experience [in Italian]. Minerva Pediatr 2007; 59 (5) 488-489
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Blout C, Walsh Vockley C, Gaviglio A, Fox M, Croke B, Williamson Dean L ; Newborn Screening Task Force on behalf of the NSGC Public Policy Committee. Newborn screening: education, consent, and the residual blood spot. The position of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 2014; 23 (1) 16-19
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Bavisetty S, Grody WW, Yazdani S. Emergence of pediatric rare diseases: Review of present policies and opportunities for improvement. Rare Dis 2013; 1: e23579
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Wilcken B. Medicine. Newborn screening: gaps in the evidence. Science 2013; 342 (6155) 197-198
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Dhondt JL. Expanded newborn screening: social and ethical issues. J Inherit Metab Dis 2010; 33 (Suppl. 02) S211-S217
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Bombard Y , et al. Public perceptions of the benefits and risks of newborn screening. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (2) e413-e423
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar