International experiences of genomic newborn screening: Lessons from over 10,800 newborns

IF 7.7 1区 生物学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Zornitza Stark,Sebastian Lunke,François Boemer,Heidi L. Cope,Curt Scharfe,Laurent Servais,Wendy K. Chung
{"title":"International experiences of genomic newborn screening: Lessons from over 10,800 newborns","authors":"Zornitza Stark,Sebastian Lunke,François Boemer,Heidi L. Cope,Curt Scharfe,Laurent Servais,Wendy K. Chung","doi":"10.1016/j.ajhg.2026.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Genomic sequencing has the potential to transform newborn screening (NBS) for rare diseases but raises significant pragmatic, clinical, psychosocial, ethical, and policy issues. Evidence is urgently needed to guide policy as healthcare systems around the world contemplate implementation. In 2025, four major genomic NBS (gNBS) studies, totaling over 10,800 newborns from the US, Belgium, and Australia, published initial results. The adoption of different approaches to key implementation issues in diverse healthcare systems by these studies allows us to draw comparisons and enable collective learning. All studies reported successful use of dried blood spots for DNA extraction, which supports integration with existing NBS infrastructure. Experience with automation of genomic data analysis and reporting was variable, with valuable insights gained about balancing sensitivity, specificity, scalability, and resource utilization going forward. The screen-positive rate ranged from 1.6% to 3.7%, with G6PD deficiency by far the most common condition identified. Further comparison of results was limited by wide variation in the number and type of conditions included and by inconsistencies in how outcomes were defined and reported, highlighting the need for greater harmonization of study designs and data collection. The ability to deliver gNBS at the scale and pace that would be required for a public screening program remains untested, and data on long-term outcomes and costs are still needed. Concerns also remain about inequitable access and outcomes, particularly for families at socioeconomic, linguistic, and geographical disadvantage, and these key questions need to be addressed next as the field continues to evolve.","PeriodicalId":7659,"journal":{"name":"American journal of human genetics","volume":"157 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of human genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2026.09.002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Genomic sequencing has the potential to transform newborn screening (NBS) for rare diseases but raises significant pragmatic, clinical, psychosocial, ethical, and policy issues. Evidence is urgently needed to guide policy as healthcare systems around the world contemplate implementation. In 2025, four major genomic NBS (gNBS) studies, totaling over 10,800 newborns from the US, Belgium, and Australia, published initial results. The adoption of different approaches to key implementation issues in diverse healthcare systems by these studies allows us to draw comparisons and enable collective learning. All studies reported successful use of dried blood spots for DNA extraction, which supports integration with existing NBS infrastructure. Experience with automation of genomic data analysis and reporting was variable, with valuable insights gained about balancing sensitivity, specificity, scalability, and resource utilization going forward. The screen-positive rate ranged from 1.6% to 3.7%, with G6PD deficiency by far the most common condition identified. Further comparison of results was limited by wide variation in the number and type of conditions included and by inconsistencies in how outcomes were defined and reported, highlighting the need for greater harmonization of study designs and data collection. The ability to deliver gNBS at the scale and pace that would be required for a public screening program remains untested, and data on long-term outcomes and costs are still needed. Concerns also remain about inequitable access and outcomes, particularly for families at socioeconomic, linguistic, and geographical disadvantage, and these key questions need to be addressed next as the field continues to evolve.
新生儿基因组筛查的国际经验:来自10800多名新生儿的经验教训
基因组测序有可能改变罕见疾病的新生儿筛查(NBS),但也引发了重大的务实、临床、社会心理、伦理和政策问题。在世界各地的卫生保健系统考虑实施时,迫切需要证据来指导政策。2025年,四项主要的基因组NBS (gNBS)研究发表了初步结果,涉及来自美国、比利时和澳大利亚的10800多名新生儿。这些研究采用不同的方法来解决不同医疗保健系统的关键实施问题,使我们能够进行比较并进行集体学习。所有的研究报告都成功地使用了干血点进行DNA提取,这支持了与现有NBS基础设施的整合。基因组数据分析和报告自动化的经验是可变的,在平衡敏感性、特异性、可伸缩性和资源利用率方面获得了有价值的见解。筛查阳性率从1.6%到3.7%不等,G6PD缺乏是目前最常见的症状。由于纳入的条件数量和类型差异很大,以及结果的定义和报告方式不一致,进一步的结果比较受到限制,这突出表明需要进一步协调研究设计和数据收集。以公共筛查项目所需的规模和速度提供gNBS的能力尚未得到检验,而且仍需要长期结果和成本的数据。人们还对不公平的获取和结果感到担忧,特别是对处于社会经济、语言和地理劣势的家庭来说,随着该领域的不断发展,这些关键问题需要得到解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.70
自引率
4.10%
发文量
185
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Human Genetics (AJHG) is a monthly journal published by Cell Press, chosen by The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) as its premier publication starting from January 2008. AJHG represents Cell Press's first society-owned journal, and both ASHG and Cell Press anticipate significant synergies between AJHG content and that of other Cell Press titles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书