The history of newborn screening (NBS) for sickle cell disease (SCD) in Europe goes back almost 40 years. However, most European countries have not established it to date. The European screening map is surprisingly heterogenous. The first countries to introduce sickle cell screening on a national scale were France and England. The French West Indies started to screen their newborns for SCD as early as 1983/84. To this day, all countries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have added SCD as a target disease to their NBS programs. The Netherlands, Spain and Malta also have national programs. Belgium screens regionally in the Brussels and Liège regions, Ireland has been running a pilot for many years that has become quasi-official. However, the Belgian and Irish programs are not publicly funded. Italy and Germany have completed several pilot studies but are still in the preparatory phase of national NBS programs for SCD, although both countries have well-established concepts for metabolic and endocrine disorders. This article will give a brief overview of the situation in Europe and put a focus on the programs of the two pioneers of the continent, England and France.

Background: The birth prevalence of severe haemoglobinopathies such as sickle cell disease (SCD) in the Netherlands has been estimated to be at least 50 newborns per year. Neonatal screening for SCD was added to the Dutch screening programme in January 2007. We here evaluated three high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) systems for application in neonatal screening for haemoglobinopathies, and present the results of a subsequent pilot screening programme. Methods: The Variant NewBorn Screening (Vnbs) HPLC system (Bio-Rad) was validated by analysing 131 blood samples and blood mixtures. Subsequently, the performance of the G7 (Tosoh BioScience) and Ultra (Primus Corporation) was compared with the Vnbs. The three HPLC analysers were tested in a pilot screening programme on 21,969 dried blood spot samples from the routine Dutch neonatal screening programme. Results: The pilot screening resulted in 188 abnormal patterns. The three HPLC devices presented comparable within-and between-run precision and detected the abnormal samples similarly. The high throughput, sampling systems, presentation of results, and integration of the chromatograms, however, were different. Conclusion: All three analysers detected the same abnormal haemoglobins satisfactorily, but integrated the chromatograms with variable imprecision. Comparison of the results suggested that the Bio-Rad Vnbs was the preferred system. However, software adjustments were required to improve the diagnostic potential of this device for screening for β- and α-thalassaemia.

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between FAST peak percentage by adapted Bio-Rad Vnbs analysis using the valley-to-valley integration and genotypes with the aim to improve differentiation between severe α-thalassaemia forms (HbH disease) and the milder disease types. Method: DNA analysis for α-thalassaemia was performed on 91 dried blood spot samples presenting normal and elevated FAST peak levels, selected during three years of Dutch national newborn screening. Results: Significant differences were found between samples with and without α-thalassaemia mutations, regardless of the genetic profiles. No significant difference was demonstrated between HPLC in -α/αα and -α/-α, between -α/-α and –/αα and between –/αα and –/-α genotypes. Conclusion: This study confirms that the percentage HbBart's, as depicted by the FAST peak, is only a relative indication for the number of α genes affected in α-thalassaemia. Based on the data obtained using the modified Bio-Rad Vnbs software, we adopted a cut-off value of 22.5% to discriminate between possible severe α-thalassaemia or HbH disease and other α-thalassaemia phenotypes. Retrospectively, if this cut-off value was utilized during this initial three-year period of neonatal screening, the positive predictive value would have been 0.030 instead of 0.014.

In The Netherlands, newborn screening (NBS) for tyrosinemia type 1 (TT1) uses dried blood spot (DBS) succinylacetone (SUAC) as a biomarker. However, high false-positive (FP) rates and a false-negative (FN) case show that the Dutch TT1 NBS protocol is suboptimal. In search of optimization options, we evaluated the protocols used by other NBS programs and their performance. We distributed an online survey to NBS program representatives worldwide (N = 41). Questions focused on the organization and performance of the programs and on changes since implementation. Thirty-three representatives completed the survey. TT1 incidence ranged from 1/13,636 to 1/750,000. Most NBS samples are taken between 36 and 72 h after birth. Most used biomarkers were DBS SUAC (78.9%), DBS Tyrosine (Tyr; 5.3%), or DBS Tyr with second tier SUAC (15.8%). The pooled median cut-off for SUAC was 1.50 µmol/L (range 0.3–7.0 µmol/L). The median cut-off from programs using laboratory-developed tests was significantly higher (2.63 µmol/L) than the medians from programs using commercial kits (range 1.0–1.7 µmol/L). The pooled median cut-off for Tyr was 216 µmol/L (range 120–600 µmol/L). Overall positive predictive values were 25.9% for SUAC, 1.2% for Tyr solely, and 90.1% for Tyr + SUAC. One FN result was reported for TT1 NBS using SUAC, while three FN results were reported for TT1 NBS using Tyr. The NBS programs for TT1 vary worldwide in terms of analytical methods, biochemical markers, and cut-off values. There is room for improvement through method standardization, cut-off adaptation, and integration of new biomarkers. Further enhancement is likely to be achieved by the application of post-analytical tools.