Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Mar 1;112(4):350-366.
doi: 10.1002/bdr2.1653.

Mandatory newborn screening in the United States: History, current status, and existential challenges

Shawn E McCandless  1 , Erica J Wright  1
Affiliations
Review

Mandatory newborn screening in the United States: History, current status, and existential challenges

Shawn E McCandless et al. Birth Defects Res. .

Abstract

Beginning in the 1960s, mandatory newborn screening (NBS) of essentially all infants has been a major public health success story. NBS is not just a blood test, rather, it is a complex, integrated system that begins with timely testing, scrupulous follow up of patients, tracking of outcomes, quality improvement of all aspects of the process, and education of providers, staff, and parents. In the past, expansion of NBS programs has been driven by new testing technology, but now is increasingly driven by the development of novel therapeutics and political advocacy. Each state determines how the NBS system will be structured in that state, but there is increasing oversight and support for harmonization at a federal level. Several recent initiatives, together with the increased number of conditions screened and the concomitant increase in burdensome false-positive tests, are creating new scrutiny of NBS systems, and potentially pose an existential risk to the public acceptance of mandatory NBS. The history, current state and challenges for NBS are explored in this issue, with some suggestions as to how to address them.

Keywords: CF; MS/MS; PKU; cystic fibrosis; intellectual disability; population-based health screening; presymptomatic; prevention; public health; recommended uniform screening panel (RUSP).

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Andermann, A., Blancquaert, I., Beauchamp, S., & Dery, V. (2008). Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: A review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86(4), 317-319. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.07.050112
    1. Ashe, K., Kelso, W., Farrand, S., Panetta, J., Fazio, T., De Jong, G., & Walterfang, M. (2019). Psychiatric and cognitive aspects of phenylketonuria: The limitations of diet and promise of new treatments. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00561
    1. Bailey, D. B., Jr., Berry-Kravis, E., Gane, L. W., Guarda, S., Hagerman, R., Powell, C. M., … Wheeler, A. (2017). Fragile X newborn screening: Lessons learned from a multisite screening study. Pediatrics, 139(Suppl 3), S216-S225. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1159H
    1. Berry, S. A., Brown, C., Grant, M., Greene, C. L., Jurecki, E., Koch, J., … Cederbaum, S. (2013). Newborn screening 50 years later: Access issues faced by adults with PKU. Genetics in Medicine, 15(8), 591-599. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.10
    1. Bickel, H., Gerrard, J., & Hickmans, E. M. (1954). The influence of phenylalanine intake on the chemistry and behaviour of a phenyl-ketonuric child. Acta Paediatrica, 43(1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.1954.tb04000.x

LinkOut - more resources