Governing population screening in an age of expansion: The case of newborn screening

[Newborn blood spot screening (NBS) in Germany : Status quo and presentation of a concept for further development]

Newborn screening from dried blood spots (NBS) is a highly effective secondary prevention measure that has been established for many years. Against the background of the inclusion of "new diseases" that meet the screening criteria, a concept for the further advancement of NBS was developed on behalf of the GKV-Spitzenverband. This was based on a systematic literature review and a survey of the status quo of NBS in Germany using quantitative and qualitative methods.It is essential for the success of NBS that all newborns affected by a target disease are diagnosed and treated at an early stage and that the harm to be expected with each screening (e.g., due to false positive findings) is kept as low as possible. This requires the organisation of screening in the sense of an integrated programme through central coordination with standardised structures, continuous quality management and digitalisation in line with data protection requirements.Although in general NBS is being implemented successfully in Germany, the research project presented here also reveals weaknesses and a need for action. Proposals and recommendations were compiled in a concept paper, which shows approaches for further development of NBS in line with the current state of research in consideration of changing demands on the infrastructure and processes in the health system. This review article summarises the challenges, current status and possible solutions for the central topics of the concept paper.

Is Our Newborn Screening Working Well? A Literature Review of Quality Requirements for Newborn Blood Spot Screening (NBS) Infrastructure and Procedures

Newborn screening using dried blood spots (NBS) is widely acknowledged as a highly successful procedure in secondary prevention. For a number of congenital disorders, severe disability or death are impressively prevented by early detection and early treatment through NBS. However, as with any other screening, NBS can also cause harm, and the principle that "the overall benefits of screening should outweigh the harms" must be considered when introducing and implementing NBS programmes. This publication compiles the results of a systematic literature research on requirements for NBS infrastructure and procedures which was conducted as part of a research project on the quality and shortcomings of the NBS pathway in Germany. The compilation contains the requirements and recommendations for realising the principle of "maximise benefits and minimise harms" in relevant NBS pathway components such as parental education and information, coverage, timeliness, laboratory quality assurance, follow-up of abnormal results, confirmatory diagnostics, documentation, and evaluation. The results reflect the complexity of NBS infrastructure, and thus, they illustrate the importance of considering and implementing NBS as a well-coordinated public health programme with continuous quality management. Special attention should be paid to the perspectives of parents and families. Some NBS issues can substantially benefit from digital instruments or international cooperation. The literature review presented here has contributed to a concept of proposals for the advancement of NBS in Germany, and despite different settings, it may as well be of interest for other countries to achieve the best possible course and outcome of NBS for each child.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Background: In their landmark report on the “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease” (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of “screening governance organizations” to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by the three lead authors. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Inborn errors of metabolism in the 21st century: past to present

The 21^st century is an exciting time to be in the field of metabolic medicine. As with many fields, one of the keys to anticipating the future is to understand the past. The term "inborn error of metabolism" was first coined in 1908 by Sir Archibald Garrod, in reference to four disorders (alkaptonuria, pentosuria, cystinuria and albinism). The first (and still most definitive) textbook on the subject, "The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease" was initially published in 1960 and covered 80 disorders in 1,477 pages. After the eighth edition of this text became unwieldy at 6,338 pages in 4 volumes covering more than 1,000 disorders, the book was changed to an online reference text with 259 chapters and is still growing. Current newborn screening on a few dried blood spots on filter paper identifies more than 1 in 2,000 newborns as having a metabolic disorder. The availability of metabolomic and genomic analyses is resulting in the diagnosis of many new disorders. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) has provided treatments for previously untreatable metabolic disorders, and the promise of gene therapy on the near horizon will certainly revolutionize the field.