Expanding the Australian Newborn Blood Spot Screening Program using genomic sequencing: do we want it and are we ready?

Newborn Screening: Current Practice and Our Journey over the Last 60 Years

BACKGROUND

Inborn errors of metabolism comprise a set of more than 2000 known disorders which can result in significant morbidity and may be rapidly fatal. Diagnosing these disorders at birth and treating immediately, however, may often result in a normal to near-normal life for the affected infant. Thus, newborn screening (NBS) has saved or improved the lives of countless individuals since its inception in the 1960s.

CONTENT

This review covers NBS, from its early beginnings up to the current day practice. We follow the evolution of NBS, as well as describe the need and how disorders are added to NBS programs, the testing and how its performance is monitored, and the follow-up to the testing. We also briefly touch on NBS outside the United States.

SUMMARY

Newborn screening in the United States is a major public health success story and it continues to grow and evolve to cover more disorders and utilize new technological advances.

Key informant perspectives on implementing genomic newborn screening: a qualitative study guided by the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time framework

Newborn screening (NBS) programmes are highly successful, trusted, public health interventions. Genomic sequencing offers the opportunity to increase the benefits of NBS by screening infants for a greater number and variety of childhood-onset conditions. This study aimed to describe who needs to do what, when, and for whom to deliver genomic newborn screening (gNBS) and capture perceived implementation barriers and enablers. 'Key informants' (individuals involved in the delivery of NBS) were interviewed. The Actor, Action, Context, Time and Target framework guided data collection and analysis. Participants (N = 20) identified new Actions required to deliver gNBS (educating healthcare providers, longitudinal psychosocial support), NBS Actions needing modification (obtaining consent) and NBS Actions that could be adopted for gNBS (prompt referral pathways). Obtaining consent in a prenatal Context was a source of some disagreement. The Time to disclose high chance results was raised as a key consideration in gNBS programme design. Genetic counsellors were identified as key Actors in results management, but workforce limitations may be a barrier. Online decision support tools were an enabler to offering gNBS. The implementation of gNBS will require behaviour changes from HCPs delivering NBS. Findings can inform how to deliver gNBS at population-scale.

The Multi-Omic Approach to Newborn Screening: Opportunities and Challenges

Newborn screening programs have seen significant evolution since their initial implementation more than 60 years ago, with the primary goal of detecting treatable conditions within the earliest possible timeframe to ensure the optimal treatment and outcomes for the newborn. New technologies have driven the expansion of screening programs to cover additional conditions. In the current era, the breadth of screened conditions could be further expanded by integrating omic technologies such as untargeted metabolomics and genomics. Genomic screening could offer opportunities for lifelong care beyond the newborn period. For genomic newborn screening to be effective and ready for routine adoption, it must overcome barriers such as implementation cost, public acceptability, and scalability. Metabolomics approaches, on the other hand, can offer insight into disease phenotypes and could be used to identify known and novel biomarkers of disease. Given recent advances in metabolomic technologies, alongside advances in genomics including whole-genome sequencing, the combination of complementary multi-omic approaches may provide an exciting opportunity to leverage the best of both approaches and overcome their respective limitations. These techniques are described, along with the current outlook on multi-omic-based NBS research.

Current Status of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Worldwide 2024: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Activities (2020-2023)

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) began in the early 1960s based on the work of Dr. Robert "Bob" Guthrie in Buffalo, NY, USA. His development of a screening test for phenylketonuria on blood absorbed onto a special filter paper and transported to a remote testing laboratory began it all. Expansion of NBS to large numbers of asymptomatic congenital conditions flourishes in many settings while it has not yet been realized in others. The need for NBS as an efficient and effective public health prevention strategy that contributes to lowered morbidity and mortality wherever it is sustained is well known in the medical field but not necessarily by political policy makers. Acknowledging the value of national NBS reports published in 2007, the authors collaborated to create a worldwide NBS update in 2015. In a continuing attempt to review the progress of NBS globally, and to move towards a more harmonized and equitable screening system, we have updated our 2015 report with information available at the beginning of 2024. Reports on sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, missing in 2015, have been included. Tables popular in the previous report have been updated with an eye towards harmonized comparisons. To emphasize areas needing attention globally, we have used regional tables containing similar listings of conditions screened, numbers of screening laboratories, and time at which specimen collection is recommended. Discussions are limited to bloodspot screening.

'Integrating Ethics and Equity with Economics and Effectiveness for newborn screening in the genomic age: A qualitative study protocol of stakeholder perspectives

BACKGROUND

Newborn bloodspot screening is a well-established population health initiative that detects serious, childhood-onset, treatable conditions to improve health outcomes. With genomic technologies advancing rapidly, many countries are actively discussing the introduction of genomic assays into newborn screening programs. While adding genomic testing to Australia's newborn screening program could improve outcomes for infants and families, it must be considered against potential harms, ethical, legal, equity and social implications, and economic and health system impacts. We must ask not only 'can' we use genomics to screen newborns?' but 'should we'?' and 'how much should health systems invest in genomic newborn screening?'.

METHODS

This study will use qualitative methods to explore understanding, priorities, concerns and expectations of genomic newborn screening among parents/carers, health professionals/scientists, and health policy makers across Australia. In-depth, semi-structured interviews will be held with 30-40 parents/carers recruited via hospital and community settings, 15-20 health professionals/scientists, and 10-15 health policy makers. Data will be analysed using inductive content analysis. The Sydney Children's Hospital Network Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study protocol [2023/ETH02371]. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research will guide study planning, conduct and reporting.

DISCUSSION

Few studies have engaged a diverse range of stakeholders to explore the implications of genomics in newborn screening in a culturally and genetically diverse population, nor in a health system underpinned by universal health care. As the first study within a multi-part research program, findings will be used to generate new knowledge on the risks and benefits and importance of ethical, legal, social and equity implications of genomic newborn screening from the perspective of key stakeholders. As such it will be the foundation on which child and family centered criteria can be developed to inform health technology assessments and drive efficient and effective policy decision-making on the implementation of genomics in newborn screening.

Evaluating a Novel Newborn Screening Methodology: Combined Genetic and Biochemical Screenings

PURPOSE

Analysis of four newborn screening modes using newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) and traditional biochemical screening (TBS).

METHODS

Prospective clinical study with a total of 1,012 newborn samples from retrospective TBS. Three independent groups performed the study under strict double-blind conditions according to the screening modes: independent biochemical (IBS), independent NeoSeq (INS), sequential (SS), and combined (CS) screening. Using targeted sequencing, the NeoSeq panel included 154 pathogenic genes covering 86 diseases.

RESULTS

Of the 1,012 newborns, 120 were diagnosed were diagnosed with genetic diseases Among them, 52 cases were within the scope of TBS and 68 additional cases were identified through nGS. The number of cases detected per screening mode was 50, 113, 56, and 119 for IBS, INS, SS, and CS, respectively. CS was the most satisfactory screening mode, with the detection rate of 99.17%, the specificity and positive predictive value of 100%, and the negative predictive value of 99.89%. In addition, of the 68 cases identified by nGS (96 variants in 31 pathogenic genes), only four participants (5.9%) had clinical manifestations consistent with the disease. The experimental reporting cycles of CS and INS were the shortest.

CONCLUSIONS

CS was the most satisfactory method for newborn screening, which combined nGS with TBS to improve early diagnosis.

Australian Public Perspectives on Genomic Newborn Screening: Risks, Benefits, and Preferences for Implementation

Recent dramatic reductions in the timeframe in which genomic sequencing can deliver results means its application in time-sensitive screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is becoming a reality. As genomic NBS (gNBS) programs are developed around the world, there is an increasing need to address the ethical and social issues that such initiatives raise. This study therefore aimed to explore the Australian public's perspectives and values regarding key gNBS characteristics and preferences for service delivery. We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age via social media; 75 people aged 23-72 participated in 1 of 15 focus groups. Participants were generally supportive of introducing genomic sequencing into newborn screening, with several stating that the adoption of such revolutionary and beneficial technology was a moral obligation. Participants consistently highlighted receiving an early diagnosis as the leading benefit, which was frequently linked to the potential for early treatment and intervention, or access to other forms of assistance, such as peer support. Informing parents about the test during pregnancy was considered important. This study provides insights into the Australian public's views and preferences to inform the delivery of a gNBS program in the Australian context.

Australian parental perceptions of genomic newborn screening for non-communicable diseases

Background: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) programs have improved neonatal healthcare since the 1960s. Genomic sequencing now offers potential to generate polygenic risk score (PRS) that could be incorporated into NBS programs, shifting the focus from treatment to prevention of future noncommunicable disease (NCD). However, Australian parents' knowledge and attitudes regarding PRS for NBS is currently unknown. Methods: Parents with at least one Australian-born child under 18 years were invited via social media platforms to complete an online questionnaire aimed at examining parents' knowledge of NCDs, PRS, and precision medicine, their opinions on receiving PRS for their child, and considerations of early-intervention strategies to prevent the onset of disease. Results: Of 126 participants, 90.5% had heard the term "non-communicable disease or chronic condition," but only 31.8% and 34.4% were aware of the terms "polygenic risk score" and "precision medicine" respectively. A large proportion of participants said they would consider screening their newborn to receive a PRS for allergies (77.9%), asthma (81.0%), cancer (64.8%), cardiovascular disease (65.7%), mental illness (56.7%), obesity (49.5%), and type 2 diabetes (66.7%). Additionally, participants would primarily consider diet and exercise as interventions for specific NCDs. Discussion: The results from this study will inform future policy for genomic NBS, including expected rate of uptake and interventions that parents would consider employing to prevent the onset of disease.