4.7 Review

Challenges for Worldwide Harmonization of Newborn Screening Programs

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 689-698

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2015.240903

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Inherited metabolic disorders (IMDs) are caused by a defect in a metabolic pathway, leading to malfunctioning metabolism and/or the accumulation of toxic intermediate metabolites. To date, hundreds of IMDs have been identified. Many of these diseases are potentially fatal conditions that are not apparent at birth. Newborn screening (NBS) programs involve the clinical and laboratory examination of neonates who exhibit no health problems, with the aim of discovering those infants who are, in fact, suffering from a treatable condition. CONTENT: In recent years, the introduction of tandem mass spectrometry has allowed the expansion of screening programs. However, this expansion has brought a high degree of heterogeneity in the IMDs tested among different NBS programs. An attempt to harmonize the metabolic conditions recommended to be screened has been carried out. Two uniform screening panels have been proposed in the US and European Union, by knowledgeable organizations. Here, we review current evidence-based processes to assess and expand NBS programs. We also discuss the IMDs that have recently been introduced in some screening programs, such as severe combined immunodeficiencies, lysosomal storage disorders, and adrenoleukodystrophy. SUMMARY: NBS programs have been an established public health function for more than 50 years to efficiently and cost-effectively identify neonates with severe conditions. However, NBS is not yet optimal. This review is intended to elucidate the current degree of harmonization of NBS programs worldwide as well as to describe the major controversial points and discuss the multiple challenges that must be confronted in expanded NBS strategies. (C) 2016 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据