medigraphic.com
Boletín Médico del Hospital Infantil de México

2009, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2009; 66 (5)

Institutional variability of neonatal screening in Mexico

Vela-Amieva M, Belmont-Martínez L, Ibarra-González I, Fernández-Lainez C

Language: Spanish
References: 44
Page: 431-439
PDF size: 178.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. Recently, the development of technology has reached the availability of neonatal screening (NS) for an increasing number of diseases. In Mexico, the actual official regulation makes obligatory the detection of only one disease -hypothyroidism. Despite this, the regulation has remained without changes since 1988. Panels involved in NS have evolved differently in the Mexican health sector. We undertook this study to determine the variability of the NS panels and the number of detected diseases as well as the diverse methodologies used for their determination in the different institutions of the Mexican health system.
Methods. Telephone interviews were made to the directors of the NS program for each federal entity and institution.
Results. We found that some institutions only screen for one disease, whereas others screen for up to 60 diseases. Methodology variation was 1 to 5.
Conclusions. There is great variability in the number of diseases detected in newborns as well as in the methodologies used. Such inconsistency depends on the place of birth and the parents’ employment for insurance affiliation. This difference leads to unequal opportunities for the detection of severe inherited diseases with high potential of impaired development. It is important to establish equal, fair and modern health policies in regard to NS in Mexico.


REFERENCES

  1. Velázquez A, Villareal M, Galindo M. Newborn genetic screening: The Mexican program. En: Armendares S, Lisker R, Ebling F, Henderson I, editores. Human genetics. Amsterdam: Excerpta Médica; 1977. p. 214-24.

  2. Guthrie R, Susi A. A simple phenylalanine method for detecting phenylketonuria in large populations of newborn infants. Pediatrics. 1963; 32: 338-43.

  3. Velázquez A. Neonatal screening in Mexico. En: Wilcken B, Webster D, editores. Neonatal screening in the nineties. Sydney: Kelvin Press; 1991. p. 43-4.

  4. Carrasco C, Ruíz-de Chávez S, Rodríguez M, Velázquez A. Cost-benefit analysis of the Mexican neonatal screening program for inborn errors of metabolism. En: Therrell B, editor. Advances in neonatal screening. Amsterdam: Excerpta Médica; 1987. p. 447-8.

  5. Velázquez A. Neonatal screening in countries with socioeconomic developmental problems: Results of an international inquiry. En: Farriaux J, Dhondt J, editores. New horizons in neonatal screening. New York: Elsevier; 1994. p. 301-7.

  6. Potter BK, Avard D, Wilson BJ. Newborn blood spot screening in four countries: Stakeholder involvement. J Public Health Policy. 2008; 29:121-42.

  7. Kayton A. Newborn screening: A literature review. Neonatal Netw. 2007; 26: 85-95.

  8. Therrell BL, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Mann MY. Understanding newborn screening system issues with emphasis on cystic fibrosis screening. J Pediatr. 2005; 147 Suppl 3: S6-10.

  9. Huitrón P, Matamoros M. Financiamiento al sistema de Salud en México. En: Knaul FM, Bertozzi SM, Arreola-Ornelas H, editores. Innovaciones en el Financiamiento de la Salud. México: Ed. Fundación Mexicana para la Salud, A. C., Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; ISBN: 968-5661-40-5; 2006. p. 17-24.

  10. Norma Técnica 321 para la Prevención del Retraso Mental producido por Hipotiroidismo Congénito. México: Diario Oficial de la Federación, Órgano del Gobierno Constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Tomo CDXX; 1988. p. 89-90.

  11. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-007-SSA2-1993. Atención de la mujer durante el embarazo, parto y puerperio y recién nacido. Criterios y procedimientos para la prestación del servicio. México: Diario Oficial de la Federación, Órgano del Gobierno Constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Tomo CDXCVI; 1995. p. 19-38.

  12. Pollitt RJ. International perspectives on newborn screening. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2006; 29: 390-6.

  13. New technologies for genetic and newborn screening: A medical, legal, and ethical update. J Biol Med.1991; 64: 1-110.

  14. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-034-SSA2-2002. Para la prevención y control de los defectos al nacimiento. México: Diario Oficial de la Federación, Órgano del Gobierno Constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Tomo DLXXVII, 24; 2003.

  15. Almond B. Genetic profiling of newborns: Ethical and social issues. Nat Rev Genet. 2006; 7: 67-71.

  16. Marsden D. Expanded newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry: The Massachusetts and New England experience. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2003; 34 Suppl 3: S111-4.

  17. Rinaldo P, Tortorelli S, Matern D. Recent developments and new applications of tandem mass spectrometry in newborn screening. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2004; 16: 427-33.

  18. ACOG. Committee opinion number 287, October 2003: Newborn screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102: 887-9.

  19. Pampols T. Neonatal screening. Turk J Pediatr. 2003; 45: 87-94.

  20. Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ, Booth A, Cooper NJ, Leonard JV, et al. Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: Cost, yield and outcome. Health Technol Assess. 1997; 1: 1-202.

  21. Seymour CA, Thomason MJ, Chalmers RA, Addison GM, Bain MD, Cockburn F, et al. Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1997; 1: 1-95.

  22. McGhee SA, Stiehm ER, McCabe ER. Potential costs and benefits of newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency. J Pediatr. 2005; 147: 603-8.

  23. McGhee SA, Stiehm ER, Cowan M, Krogstad P, McCabe ER. Two-tiered universal newborn screening strategy for severe combined immunodeficiency. Mol Genet Metab. 2005; 86: 427-30.

  24. Millington DS. Rapid and effective screening for lysosomal storage disease: How close are we? Clin Chem. 2008; 54: 1592-4.

  25. Chien YH, Chiang SC, Zhang XK, Keutzer J, Lee NC, Huang AC, et al. Early detection of pompe disease by newborn screening is feasible: Results from the Taiwan Screening Program. Pediatrics. 2008; 122: e39-e45.

  26. Matern D. Newborn screening for lysosomal storage disorders. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2008; 97: 33-7.

  27. Bailey DB Jr., Skinner D, Sparkman KL. Discovering fragile X syndrome: Family experiences and perceptions. Pediatrics. 2003; 111: 407-16.

  28. Bailey DB Jr., Skinner D, Davis AM, Whitmarsh I, Powell C. Ethical, legal, and social concerns about expanded newborn screening: Fragile X syndrome as a prototype for emerging issues. Pediatrics. 2008; 121: e693-e704.

  29. Brush CA, Kelly MM, Green D, Gaffney M, Kattwinkel J, French M. Meeting the challenge: Using policy to improve children’s health. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95: 1904-9.

  30. Therrell BL, Johnson A, Williams D. Status of newborn screening programs in the United States. Pediatrics. 2006; 117: S212-S52.

  31. Holtzman NA. What role for public health in genetics and vice versa? Community Genet. 2006; 9: 8-20.

  32. Kraszewski J, Burke T, Rosenbaum S. Legal issues in newborn screening: Implications for public health practice and policy. Public Health Rep. 2006; 121: 92-4.

  33. Hiller EH, Landenburger G, Natowicz MR. Public participation in medical policy-making and the status of consumer autonomy: The example of newborn-screening programs in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1997; 87: 1280-8.

  34. Abbing HD. Neonatal screening, new technologies, old and new legal concerns. Eur J Health Law. 2004; 11: 129-37.

  35. Townes PL. Newborn screening: A potpourri of policies. Am J Public Health. 1986; 76: 1191-2.

  36. Pollit RJ. Introducing new screens: Why are we all doing different things? J Inherit Metab Dis. 2007; 30: 423-9.

  37. Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Bright Futures Steering Committee. Recommendations for Preventive Pediatric Health Care. Pediatrics. 2007; 120: 1376.

  38. Newborn Screening Authoring Committee. Newborn Screening Expands: Recommendations for Pediatricians and Medical Homes Implications for the System. Pediatrics. 2008; 121: 192-217.

  39. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Déry V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: A review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ. 2008; 86: 241-320.

  40. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: WHO; 1968. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07-050112BP.pdf

  41. Bailey DB, Skinner D, Warren SF. Newborn screening for developmental disabilities: Reframing presumptive benefit. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95: 1889-93.

  42. Comeau AM, Eaton RB. Successes of newborn screening programs. Science. 2002; 295: 44-5.

  43. Clarke A, Parsons EP. Screening, ethics, and the law. BMJ. 1993; 306: 209.

  44. Green NS, Dolan SM, Murray TH. Newborn screening: Complexities in universal genetic testing. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96: 1955-9.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com