John H Walter1. 1. Willink Biochemical Genetics Unit, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, M27 4HA, Manchester, UK. john.walter@cmmc.mhs.uk
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Recent technological advances have led to an expansion in inborn errors that can be detected in the newborn period. Further developments in newborn screening will increase this number further. There are two main arguments put forward to support the developments of an expanded newborn screening programme. Firstly there may be an improvement in patient outcome. The early detection of disorders either in the pre-symptomatic or early symptomatic phase should, with treatment, result in the prevention of severe illness. This is evident for phenylketonuria and generally accepted for homocystinuria and medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, disorders which have a long pre-symptomatic phase. However, other inborn errors may present within the first 10 days of life with severe illness, particularly neonatal encephalopathy. In order to effectively stop the rapid progression of these disorders, screening must be undertaken early although where severe metabolic decompensation occurs within 2 to 3 days of birth, newborn screening programmes are unlikely to be of direct benefit. Secondly an early diagnosis, even when this does not affect that individual's prognosis, may allow for accurate genetic advise to be given to the family and the opportunity to have prenatal diagnosis for future pregnancies. CONCLUSION: For the clinician, the introduction of an expanded and early newborn screening presents opportunities for improved patient and family care. However, it is important to be aware of possible detrimental effects on families of early screening. Screening tests must have adequate sensitivity and high specificity. Furthermore with early screening, close liaison between the laboratory, clinicians and community services is essential.
UNLABELLED: Recent technological advances have led to an expansion in inborn errors that can be detected in the newborn period. Further developments in newborn screening will increase this number further. There are two main arguments put forward to support the developments of an expanded newborn screening programme. Firstly there may be an improvement in patient outcome. The early detection of disorders either in the pre-symptomatic or early symptomatic phase should, with treatment, result in the prevention of severe illness. This is evident for phenylketonuria and generally accepted for homocystinuria and medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, disorders which have a long pre-symptomatic phase. However, other inborn errors may present within the first 10 days of life with severe illness, particularly neonatal encephalopathy. In order to effectively stop the rapid progression of these disorders, screening must be undertaken early although where severe metabolic decompensation occurs within 2 to 3 days of birth, newborn screening programmes are unlikely to be of direct benefit. Secondly an early diagnosis, even when this does not affect that individual's prognosis, may allow for accurate genetic advise to be given to the family and the opportunity to have prenatal diagnosis for future pregnancies. CONCLUSION: For the clinician, the introduction of an expanded and early newborn screening presents opportunities for improved patient and family care. However, it is important to be aware of possible detrimental effects on families of early screening. Screening tests must have adequate sensitivity and high specificity. Furthermore with early screening, close liaison between the laboratory, clinicians and community services is essential.
Authors: R J Pollitt; A Green; C J McCabe; A Booth; N J Cooper; J V Leonard; J Nicholl; P Nicholson; J R Tunaley; N K Virdi Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 1997 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: C A Seymour; M J Thomason; R A Chalmers; G M Addison; M D Bain; F Cockburn; P Littlejohns; J Lord; A H Wilcox Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 1997 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: T H Zytkovicz; E F Fitzgerald; D Marsden; C A Larson; V E Shih; D M Johnson; A W Strauss; A M Comeau; R B Eaton; G F Grady Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: B S Andresen; S F Dobrowolski; L O'Reilly; J Muenzer; S E McCandless; D M Frazier; S Udvari; P Bross; I Knudsen; R Banas; D H Chace; P Engel; E W Naylor; N Gregersen Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2001-05-08 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: J S Camelo; M I Machado Fernandes; L M Zanini Maciel; C A Scrideli; J L Ferreira Santos; A S Camargo; C Souza Passador; P Carvalho Leite; D Ruffato Resende; L Oliveira de Souza; R Giugliani; S Moysés Jorge Journal: J Inherit Metab Dis Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 4.982