Neonatal screening (NBS) was initiated in Europe during the 1960s with the screening for phenylketonuria. The panel of screened disorders (“conditions”) then gradually expanded, with a boost in the late 1990s with the introduction of tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), making it possible to screen for 40–50 conditions using a single blood spot. The most recent additions to screening programmes (screening for cystic fibrosis, severe combined immunodeficiency and spinal muscular atrophy) were assisted by or realised through the introduction of molecular technologies. For this survey, we collected data from 51 European countries. We report the developments between 2010 and 2020 and highlight the achievements reached with the progress made in this period. We also identify areas where further progress can be made, mainly by exchanging knowledge and learning from experiences in neighbouring countries. Between 2010 and 2020, most NBS programmes in geographical Europe matured considerably, both in terms of methodology (modernised) and with regard to the panel of conditions screened (expanded). These developments indicate that more collaboration in Europe through European organisations is gaining momentum. We can only accomplish the timely detection of newborn infants potentially suffering from one of the many rare diseases and take appropriate action by working together.

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.

Newborn screening for lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) is increasingly being considered as an option. The development of analytical screening methods, of second-tier methods, and of therapeutic possibilities, are paving the way for routine screening for LSDs in the coming years. Here, we give a brief description of the current status quo, what screening methods are currently available or are in the pipeline, what is the current status of therapeutic possibilities for LSDs, what LSDs are the most obvious candidates for introduction in screening programs, and what LSDs are already part of regional or national pilot or routine screening programs worldwide.

The offer of prenatal Down’s syndrome screening is part of routine antenatal care in most of Europe; however screening uptake varies significantly across countries. Although a decision to accept or reject screening is a personal choice, it is unlikely that the widely differing uptake rates across countries can be explained by variation in individual values alone. The aim of this study was to compare Down’s syndrome screening policies and programmes in the Netherlands, where uptake is relatively low ( 90% respectively), in an attempt to explain the observed variation in national uptake rates. We used a mixed methods approach with an embedded design: a) documentary analysis and b) expert stakeholder analysis. National central statistical offices and legal documents were studied first to gain insight in demographic characteristics, cultural background, organization and structure of healthcare followed by documentary analysis of primary and secondary sources on relevant documents on DSS policies and programme. To enhance interpretation of these findings we performed in-depth interviews with relevant expert stakeholders. There were many similarities in the demographics, healthcare systems, government abortion legislation and Down’s syndrome screening policy across the studied countries. However, the additional cost for Down’s syndrome screening over and above standard antenatal care in the Netherlands and an emphasis on the ‘right not to know’ about screening in this country were identified as potential explanations for the ‘low’ uptake rates of Down’s syndrome screening in the Netherlands. The social context and positive framing of the offer at the service delivery level may play a role in the relatively high uptake rates in Denmark. This paper makes an important contribution to understanding how macro-level demographic, social and healthcare delivery factors may have an impact on national uptake rates for Down’s syndrome screening. It has suggested a number of policy level and system characteristics that may go some way to explaining the relatively low uptake rates of Down’s syndrome screening in the Netherlands when compared to England and Denmark.

All worldwide newborn screening (NBS) for lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) is performed as a first-tier test by measurement of lysosomal enzymatic activities in dried blood spots (DBS). The currently two available methodologies used for measurement of enzymatic activities are tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) and digital microfluidics fluorimetry (DMF-F). In this chapter we summarize the workflows for the two platforms. Neither platform is fully automated, but the relative ease of workflow will be dependent upon the specific operation of each newborn screening laboratory on a case-by-case basis. We provide the screen positive rate (the number of below cutoff newborns per 100,000 newborns) from all NBS laboratories worldwide carrying out MS/MS-based NBS of one or more LSDs. The analytical precision of the MS/MS method is higher than that for DMF-F as shown by analysis of a common set of quality control DBS by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Both the MS/MS and DMF-F platforms enable multiplexing of the LSD enzymes. An advantage of MS/MS over DMF-F is the ability to include assays of enzymatic activities and biomarkers for which no fluorimetric methods exist. Advantages of DMF-F over MS/MS are: (1) simple to use technology with same-day turn-around time for the lysosomal enzymes with the fastest rates compared to MS/MS requiring overnight analytical runs.; (2) the DMF-F instrumentation, because of its simplicity, requires less maintenance than the MS/MS platform.

In 1963, Robert Guthrie’s pioneering work developing a bacterial inhibition assay to measure phenylalanine in dried blood spots, provided the means for whole-population screening to detect phenylketonuria in the USA. In the following decades, NBS became firmly established as a part of public health in developed countries. Technological advances allowed for the addition of new disorders into routine programmes and thereby resulted in a paradigm shift. Today, technological advances in immunological methods, tandem mass spectrometry, PCR techniques, DNA sequencing for mutational variant analysis, ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UPLC), iso-electric focusing, and digital microfluidics are employed in the NBS laboratory to detect more than 60 disorders. In this review, we will provide the current state of methodological advances that have been introduced into NBS. Particularly, ‘second-tier’ methods have significantly improved both the specificity and sensitivity of testing. We will also present how proteomic and metabolomic techniques can potentially improve screening strategies to reduce the number of false-positive results and improve the prediction of pathogenicity. Additionally, we discuss the application of complex, multiparameter statistical procedures that use large datasets and statistical algorithms to improve the predictive outcomes of tests. Future developments, utilizing genomic techniques, are also likely to play an increasingly important role, possibly combined with artificial intelligence (AI)-driven software. We will consider the balance required to harness the potential of these new advances whilst maintaining the benefits and reducing the risks for harm associated with all screening.