What's New in Newborn Screening?

Bradford L. Therrell; Colleen Buechner; Michele A. Lloyd-Puryear; Peter C. van Dyck; Marie Y. Mann

Pediatr Health. 2008;2(4):411-429.

Newborn Screening System Evaluation

Evaluation is an important component of NBS quality assurance. It is necessary to know if the component parts of the NBS system are functioning properly and if the goals of early detection and medical management are achieving the proper outcomes. A recent report outlines the history and current status of NDBS system evaluation efforts in the USA.^[16] While laboratory proficiency is perhaps the most obvious evaluation activity, and a formal voluntary national program exists through the CDC, evaluations of other aspects of the screening system are equally important. The HRSA/MCHB initiative to develop PEAS (see introduction) has led to a comprehensive list of indicators that may be used for program self-evaluation and improvement. This four-part evaluation instrument (cross-cutting, preanalytic, analytic and postanalytic), comprehensively lists system components and performance indicators to provide administrative guidance for system improvement plans that should ultimately lead to increased program uniformity nationally.

Comprehensive program review by external experts provides another means of program quality assessment available to US NBS programs. Initiated in 1988 as a program-improvement activity of HRSA/MCHB, this review process has now been accessed by over 30 state programs. A small multidisciplinary team of NBS experts with extensive program experience is provided on request by the NNSGRC. Their review process includes on-site visits with state-program staff and other interested stakeholders to address self-identified issues targeted for program improvement/refinement. Following interviews, information sharing and visits with local stakeholders, a summary exit interview and written report serve to document the review team's recommendations. Team members remain available for consultative assistance following the program review.^[16]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Next Section

Cite this: What's New in Newborn Screening? - Medscape - Aug 01, 2008.

Abstract and Introduction
General Considerations in US Newborn Screening Systems
Screening Policies & Screened Conditions
Current State Screening Practices
Newborn Screening Education
Newborn Screening System Evaluation
Conclusion
Future Perspective
References
Sidebar: Executive Summary

Table 1. Conditions Required by US Newborn Screening Programs
Jurisdiction	Births^*	Conditions required in state newborn screening program^‡
		Congenital hypothyroidism	Phenylketonuria	Galactosemia	Sickle cell diseases	Congenital adrenal hyperplasia	Biotinidase deficiency
Alabama	59,300	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Alaska	10,365	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Arizona	95,687	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Arkansas	38,381	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
California	549,100	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Colorado	69,205	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Connecticut	42,133	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Delaware	12,265	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
District of Columbia	14,311	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Florida	226,415	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Georgia	143,476	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Hawaii	17,911	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Idaho	22,522	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Illinois	175,714	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Indiana	87,843	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Iowa	39,337	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Kansas	40,737	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Kentucky	54,590	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Louisiana	60,461	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Maine	13,975	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Maryland	71,292	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Massachusetts	77,820	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Michigan	126,498	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Minnesota	70,933	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Mississippi	41,175	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Missouri	79,523	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Montana	11,551	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Nebraska	26,350	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Nevada	36,950	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
New Hampshire	13,968	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
New Jersey	110,800	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
New Mexico	28,291	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
New York	247,901	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
North Carolina	123,943	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
North Dakota	9621	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Ohio	148,876	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Oklahoma	50,656	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Oregon	46,712	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Pennsylvania	144,908	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^¶
Rhode Island	13,481	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
South Carolina	55,321	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
South Dakota	11,957	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Tennessee	87,072	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Texas	387,856	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Utah	52,555	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Vermont	5932	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Virginia	102,646	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Washington	82,336	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
West Virginia	21,150	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Wisconsin	69,769	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Wyoming	6778	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Totals	4,138,349	51	51	51	51	51	50

Jurisdiction	Births^*	Conditions required in state newborn screening program^‡
		*Cystic fibrosis*	*G6PD Deficiency*	*MS/MS detectable*			*Toxoplasmosis*	*HIV*	*Other (Krabbe disease)*
				*Other amino acid disorders*	*Fatty acid oxidation disorders*	*Organic acid disorders*
Alabama	59,300	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Alaska	10,365	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Arizona	95,687	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Arkansas	38,381	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
California	549,100	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Colorado	69,205	^§		^¶	^§	^§
Connecticut	42,133	^¶		^¶	^¶	^¶		^#
Delaware	12,265	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
District of Columbia	14,311	^§	^§	^¶	^§	^§
Florida	226,415	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Georgia	143,476	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Hawaii	17,911	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Idaho	22,522	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Illinois	175,714	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶		^#
Indiana	87,843			^§	^§	^¶
Iowa	39,337	^§		^§	^¶	^§
Kansas	40,737	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Kentucky	54,590	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Louisiana	60,461	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Maine	13,975			^¶	^¶	^¶
Maryland	71,292	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Massachusetts	77,820	^¶		^¶	^¶	^¶	^§
Michigan	126,498	^§		^¶	^§	^§
Minnesota	70,933	^§		^§	^§	^§
Mississippi	41,175	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Missouri	79,523	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Montana	11,551	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Nebraska	26,350	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Nevada	36,950	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
New Hampshire	13,968	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶	^§
New Jersey	110,800	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
New Mexico	28,291	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
New York	247,901	^§		^¶	^§	^§		^§	^§
North Carolina	123,943			^¶	^¶	^¶
North Dakota	9621	^§		^§	^¶	^§
Ohio	148,876	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Oklahoma	50,656	^§		^§	^§	^§
Oregon	46,712	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Pennsylvania	144,908	^¶	^¶	^¶	^¶	^¶
Rhode Island	13,481	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
South Carolina	55,321	^§		^¶	^§	^§
South Dakota	11,957	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Tennessee	87,072	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Texas	387,856	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Utah	52,555			^§	^¶	^¶
Vermont	5932	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Virginia	102,646	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Washington	82,336	^§		^¶	^¶
West Virginia	21,150	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Wisconsin	69,769	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Wyoming	6778	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Totals	4,138,349	44	1	6	8	17	2	1	1

Table 2. Core Conditions and Secondary Targets Included in the American College of Medical Genetics Report
29 core conditions	25 secondary targets
MS/MS-detectable organic acid disorders
Isovaleric acidemia	Methylmalonic acidemia (Cbl C, D)
Glutaric acidemia type I	Malonic acidemia
3-hydroxy 3-methyl glutaric aciduria	Isobutyryl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency
Methylmalonic acidemia (mutase deficiency)	2-methyl 3-hydroxy butyric aciduria
3-methylcrotonyl-CoA carboxylase deficiency	2-methylbutyryl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency
Methylmalonic acidemia (Cbl A, B)	3-methylglutaconic aciduria
Multiple carboxylase deficiency (holocarboxylase synthetase deficiency)
Propionic acidemia
β-ketothiolase deficiency
MS/MS-detectable fatty acid oxidation disorders
Medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency	Short-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency
Very long-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency	Medium/short-chain L-3-hydroxy acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency
Long-chain L-3-hydroxy acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency	Medium-chain ketoacyl-CoA thiolase deficiency
Trifunctional protein deficiency	Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II deficiency
Carnitine uptake defect	Carnitine acylcarnitine translocase deficiency
	Carnitine palmitoyltranferase I deficiency (liver)
	Glutaric acidemia type II (multiple acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency)
	2, 4-dienoyl-CoA reductase deficiency
MS/MS-detectable amino acid disorders
Phenylketonuria	Benign hyperphenylalaninemia
Maple syrup urine disease	Tyrosinemia type II
Homocystinuria	Tyrosinemia type III
Citrullinemia type I	Defects of biopterin cofactor biosynthesis
Argininosuccinic aciduria	Defects of biopterin cofactor regeneration
Tyrosinemia type I	Argininemia
	Hypermethioninemia
	Citrullinemia type II
Hemoglobinopathies
Sickle cell anemia (SS-disease)	Variant hemoglobinopathies
Sickle-C disease
S-β thalassemia
Other
Transferase-deficient galactosemia (classical)	Galactokinase deficiency
Primary congenital hypothyroidism	Galactoepimerase deficiency
21-hydroxylase-deficient congenital adrenal hyperplasia
Biotinidase deficiency
Hearing screening
Cystic fibrosis

MS/MS: Tandem mass spectrometry.
Data taken from ^[35,36].

Table 1. Conditions Required by US Newborn Screening Programs
Jurisdiction	Births^*	Conditions required in state newborn screening program^‡
		Congenital hypothyroidism	Phenylketonuria	Galactosemia	Sickle cell diseases	Congenital adrenal hyperplasia	Biotinidase deficiency
Alabama	59,300	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Alaska	10,365	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Arizona	95,687	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Arkansas	38,381	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
California	549,100	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Colorado	69,205	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Connecticut	42,133	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Delaware	12,265	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
District of Columbia	14,311	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Florida	226,415	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Georgia	143,476	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Hawaii	17,911	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Idaho	22,522	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Illinois	175,714	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Indiana	87,843	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Iowa	39,337	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Kansas	40,737	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Kentucky	54,590	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Louisiana	60,461	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Maine	13,975	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Maryland	71,292	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Massachusetts	77,820	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Michigan	126,498	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Minnesota	70,933	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Mississippi	41,175	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Missouri	79,523	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Montana	11,551	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Nebraska	26,350	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Nevada	36,950	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
New Hampshire	13,968	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
New Jersey	110,800	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
New Mexico	28,291	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
New York	247,901	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
North Carolina	123,943	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
North Dakota	9621	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Ohio	148,876	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Oklahoma	50,656	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Oregon	46,712	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Pennsylvania	144,908	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^¶
Rhode Island	13,481	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
South Carolina	55,321	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
South Dakota	11,957	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Tennessee	87,072	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Texas	387,856	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Utah	52,555	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Vermont	5932	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Virginia	102,646	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Washington	82,336	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
West Virginia	21,150	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Wisconsin	69,769	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Wyoming	6778	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§	^§
Totals	4,138,349	51	51	51	51	51	50

Jurisdiction	Births^*	Conditions required in state newborn screening program^‡
		*Cystic fibrosis*	*G6PD Deficiency*	*MS/MS detectable*			*Toxoplasmosis*	*HIV*	*Other (Krabbe disease)*
				*Other amino acid disorders*	*Fatty acid oxidation disorders*	*Organic acid disorders*
Alabama	59,300	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Alaska	10,365	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Arizona	95,687	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Arkansas	38,381	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
California	549,100	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Colorado	69,205	^§		^¶	^§	^§
Connecticut	42,133	^¶		^¶	^¶	^¶		^#
Delaware	12,265	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
District of Columbia	14,311	^§	^§	^¶	^§	^§
Florida	226,415	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Georgia	143,476	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Hawaii	17,911	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Idaho	22,522	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Illinois	175,714	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶		^#
Indiana	87,843			^§	^§	^¶
Iowa	39,337	^§		^§	^¶	^§
Kansas	40,737	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Kentucky	54,590	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Louisiana	60,461	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Maine	13,975			^¶	^¶	^¶
Maryland	71,292	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Massachusetts	77,820	^¶		^¶	^¶	^¶	^§
Michigan	126,498	^§		^¶	^§	^§
Minnesota	70,933	^§		^§	^§	^§
Mississippi	41,175	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Missouri	79,523	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Montana	11,551	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Nebraska	26,350	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Nevada	36,950	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
New Hampshire	13,968	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶	^§
New Jersey	110,800	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
New Mexico	28,291	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
New York	247,901	^§		^¶	^§	^§		^§	^§
North Carolina	123,943			^¶	^¶	^¶
North Dakota	9621	^§		^§	^¶	^§
Ohio	148,876	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Oklahoma	50,656	^§		^§	^§	^§
Oregon	46,712	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Pennsylvania	144,908	^¶	^¶	^¶	^¶	^¶
Rhode Island	13,481	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
South Carolina	55,321	^§		^¶	^§	^§
South Dakota	11,957	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Tennessee	87,072	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Texas	387,856	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Utah	52,555			^§	^¶	^¶
Vermont	5932	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Virginia	102,646	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Washington	82,336	^§		^¶	^¶
West Virginia	21,150	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Wisconsin	69,769	^§		^¶	^¶	^§
Wyoming	6778	^§		^¶	^¶	^¶
Totals	4,138,349	44	1	6	8	17	2	1	1

Sidebar: Executive Summary

Introduction

The way in which newborn screening (NBS) is implemented and the numbers of conditions included vary throughout the world.
The basic responsibilities of clinicians in NBS do not vary, and include the early and accurate diagnosis and clinical management of NBS.

General considerations in US newborn screening systems

A national policy defining NBS does not currently exist and the state public health authority has (at a minimum) oversight responsibilities for NBS activities.
There are national laboratory certification requirements and national standards and guidelines that influence how screening activities occur.
Multidisciplinary advisory committees provide community input to most NBS programs.
Newborn dried blood-spot screening (NDBS) and newborn hearing screening (NHS) may exist separately or may be combined within the public health system.

Screening policies & screened conditions

Professional organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG), and government agencies, such as the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), US CDC and NIH, are providing leadership to encourage NBS harmonization and equal accessibility to related services across the country.
NBS follow-up, both short- and long-term, is a shared responsibility among the NBS program, parents and appropriate healthcare professionals aimed at improved health outcomes.
Recent technology advances have led to screening for over 50 conditions in some NDBS programs.
Research activities to expand and improve NDBS programs are ongoing, particularly with respect to second-tier tests and tests for severe combined immune deficiency, lysosomal storage diseases, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, fragile X syndrome, Type 1 diabetes and others.

Current state screening procedures

All states have statutory requirements that allow for or require NDBS, and most have requirements for NHS.
A fee for screening exists in most states, but the fee amounts vary; inability to pay does not preclude obtaining NBS.
Only three states require consent for the specified screening panel and some states (covering ~24% of all births nationally) require a second screen, usually at 1-2 weeks of age.
A national project is underway to evaluate the results of requiring a second screen and other national projects are under consideration by the Advisory Committee on Heritable Diseases and Genetic Disorders in Newborns and Children (ACHDGDNC).
Adoption of electronic health records is progressing nationally and standardized processes for including NBS results are under development.

Newborn screening education

Increased complexities in diagnosing conditions in expanded NBS panels have accentuated the need for additional education for pediatric health professionals.
Model educational materials for states to use in educating parents and professionals have been developed with federal funding assistance.
Professional organizations have providedaction/information sheets (ACMG), NBS fact sheets (AAP) and policies to aid clinicians in better understanding the rare conditions being identified and their immediate and extended role in NBS disease diagnosis and clinical management.

Newborn screening system evaluation

NDBS laboratories can avail themselves of external proficiency testing and quality assurance materials from the US CDC.
Overall NBS system components are governed by best practices, and a comprehensive self-evaluation tool, the Performance Evaluation and Assessment Scheme, has been developed as a guide to indicators of quality.

Conclusion

NDBS programs should not be referred to as 'phenylketonuria screening' since screening is much more comprehensive and concerted efforts are needed to eliminate use of this nickname.
An NBS knowledge gap exists in the clinical community and clinicians must work to increase their NBS knowledge.
Clinicians should become involved in the policy decisions affecting NBS.
NBS will continue to expand along with electronic influences that can affect patient care - record keeping and telehealth.

Comments

Commenting is limited to medical professionals. To comment please Log-in.

Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.

processing....

What's New in Newborn Screening?

Newborn Screening System Evaluation

Tables

Tables

Tables

References

Authors and Disclosures

Authors and Disclosures

Sidebar

Sidebar: Executive Summary

Comments

Email This

Feedback