Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 569–574 | Cite as

Newborn screening: how are we travelling, and where should we be going?

SSIEM Symposium 2010

Abstract

In general, newborn screening is now a highly successful enterprise. The introduction of tandem mass spectrometry in the mid-1990s changed the pace of screening, raising its profile and increasing its relevance to a wider range of health professionals. The clinical effectiveness is not in doubt for some conditions, but is lacking for others. Evaluation has major difficulties for the rarer disorders and has been sadly neglected. Partly because clinical effectiveness has not been enthusiastically addressed, but also because of undue caution on the part of regulators, who often seem to ignore available evidence, there are huge differences in the adoption of screening programmes in different jurisdictions. New treatments, especially mutation-specific treatments, and technological advances in diagnostic testing are being rapidly developed, and this will further change the face of newborn screening and probably magnify these differences. The challenges will be considerable, especially with the increasing availability of DNA testing at modest cost. It is likely that there will be pressure to change the aims of newborn screening to encompass “personalised medicine”. We must all prepare in a thoughtful way for these future challenges.

References

  1. Agarwal RK (2008) Routine immunization, India's Achilles heel. Indian Pediatr 45:625–628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. American College of Medical Genetics (2006) Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet Med 8:1S–252SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker MW, Grossman WJ, Laessig RH et al (2009) Development of a routine newborn screening protocol for severe combined immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol 124:522–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barashnev JI, Nikolayeva EA, Klembovsky AI (1988) Histidinaemia: screening, diagnosis, clinical picture, therapy. Acta Paediatr Hung 29:343–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bender L, Silverman LM, Dinulos MB, Nickel J, Grody WW (2010) Direct-to-consumer genotyping: are we ready for a brave new world? Clin Chem 56:1056–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connock M, Burls A, Frew E et al. (2006) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher's disease: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 10: iii–iv, ix–136Google Scholar
  7. Finkel RS (2010) Read-through strategies for suppression of nonsense mutations in Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy: aminoglycosides and ataluren (PTC124). J Child Neurol 25:1158–1164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grosse SD, Rosenfeld M, Devine OJ, Lai HJ, Farrell PM (2006) Potential impact of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis on child survival: a systematic review and analysis. J Pediatr 149:362–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guglieri M, Bushby K (2010) Molecular treatments in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Curr Opin Pharmacol 10:331–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guthrie R, Susi A (1963) A simple phenylalanine method for detecting phenylketonuria in large populations of newborn infants. Pediatrics 32:338–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hwu WL, Chien YH, Lee NC (2010) Newborn screening for neuropathic lysosomal storage disorders. J Inherit Metab Dis 33:381–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kemper AR, Knapp AA, Green NS, Comeau AM, Metterville DR, Perrin JM (2010) Weighing the evidence for newborn screening for early-infantile Krabbe disease. Genet Med 12:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kölker S, Garbade SF, Boy N et al (2007) Decline of acute encephalopathic crises in children with glutaryl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency identified by newborn screening in Germany. Pediatr Res 62:357–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kouremenos KA, Pitt J, Marriott PJ (2010) Metabolic profiling of infant urine using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography: application to the diagnosis of organic acidurias and biomarker discovery. J Chromatogr A 1217:104–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leandro P, Gomes CM (2008) Protein misfolding in conformational disorders: rescue of folding defects and chemical chaperoning. Mini Rev Med Chem 8:901–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marsden D, Levy H (2010) Newborn screening of lysosomal storage disorders. Clin Chem 56:1071–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCabe ER, Huang SZ, Seltzer WK, Law ML (1987) DNA microextraction from dried blood spots on filter paper blotters: potential applications to newborn screening. Hum Genet 75:213–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKay KO (2007) Cystic fibrosis: benefits and clinical outcome. J Inherit Metab Dis 30:544–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Millington DS, Kodo N, Norwood DL, Roe CR (1990) Tandem mass spectrometry: a new method for acylcarnitine profiling with potential for neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism. J Inherit Metab Dis 13:321–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Millington DS, Sista R, Eckhardt A et al (2010) Digital microfluidics: a future technology in the newborn screening laboratory? Semin Perinatol 34:163–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mischler E, Farrell P, Bruns T et al (1989) Neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis in Wisconsin. Wis Med J 88:14–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Neville BG, Bentovim A, Clayton BE, Shepherd J (1972) Histidinaemia. Study of relation between clinical and biological findings in 7 subjects. Arch Dis Child 47(252):190–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ormond KE, Wheeler MT, Hudgins L et al (2010) Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet 375(9727):1749–1751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Padilla CD, Therrell BL (2007) Newborn screening in the Asia Pacific region. J Inherit Metab Dis 30:490–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pollitt RJ (2007) Introducing new screens: why are we all doing different things? J Inherit Metab Dis 30:423–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prosser LA, Ladapo JA, Rusinak D, Waisbren SE (2008) Parental tolerance of false-positive newborn screening results. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 162:870–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Röser D, Nielsen HV, Petersen E, Saugmann-Jensen P, Nørgaard-Pedersen PB (2010) Congenital toxoplasmosis—a report on the Danish neonatal screening programme 1999–2007. J Inherit Metab Dis 33:S241–S247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soderstrom L, Woods WG, Bernstein M, Robison LL, Tuchman M, Lemieux B (2005) Health and economic benefits of well-designed evaluations: some lessons from evaluating neuroblastoma screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1118–1124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tuffs A (2010) Experts demand major revisions of German gene diagnostics law. BMJ 341:c6685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilcken B (2008) The consequences of extended newborn screening programmes: do we know who needs treatment? J Inherit Metab Dis 31:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilcken B (2010) Expanded newborn screening: reducing harm, assessing benefit. J Inherit Metab Dis 33:S205–S210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilcken B, Wiley V, Hammond J, Carpenter K (2003) Screening newborns for inborn errors of metabolism by tandem mass spectrometry. N Engl J Med 348:2304–2312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilcken B, Haas M, Joy P et al (2009) Expanded newborn screening: outcome in screened and unscreened patients at age 6 years. Pediatrics 124:e241–e248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson JMG, Jungner G (1968) Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SSIEM and Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Children’s Hospital at WestmeadWestmeadAustralia
  2. 2.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations