Approximately 2% of newborns with hyperphenylalaninaemia are deficient in tetrahydrobiopterin. Selective screening must be performed in all instances where hyperphenylalaninaemia is detected by neonatal screening. In the last 20 years, 308 patients with tetrahydrobiopterin deficiencies have been recognized as a result of screening carried out, worldwide, in Departments of Paediatrics. Of these 308 patients, 181 suffered from 6-pyruvoyltetrahydropterin synthase deficiency, 92 from dihydropteridine reductase deficiency, 13 from pterin-4a-carbinolamine dehydratase deficiency, 12 from GTP cyclohydrolase I deficiency, and 10 are still unclassified. In the BIODEF database we have tabulated the most common clinical and laboratory data related to hyperphenylalaninaemia and tetrahydrobiopterin deficiencies. Additionally, there are data regarding treatment, outcome, and DNA analysis. Preliminary evaluation reveals that the degree of hyperphenylalaninaemia can vary from normal to 2500 mumol/L. Analyses of pterins in urine and measurement of dihydropteridine reductase activity from Guthrie cards are absolutely essential tests for accurate diagnosis. There is a regional (demographic) variation in the frequency of tetrahydrobiopterin deficiencies indicating the highest incidence in Saudi Arabia, probably a consequence of the high consanguinity rate.

No abstract

Newborn screening and genetic testing have expanded rapidly in the last decade with the advent of multiplex (e.g., tandem mass spectrometry) and/or DNA technologies. However, screening panels include a large number of disorders, which may not meet all of the traditional screening criteria, established in late 1960s, and used for years to justify screening programs. After a period of expansion driven by technological advances, many reports have reconsidered the justification of expanded programs. Many factors have contributed to test-panel discrepancies between countries. The test-panel review methodology, the way health benefits are weighed against harms, and the socioeconomic-political environment all play a role. Expansion of screening also requires reconsideration of the infrastructure (ideally, in the context of national plans for rare diseases) to support testing, counselling, education, treatment, and follow-up. Consequently, economic aspects cannot be ignored and can be a limitation for expansion. New ethical questions have emerged: risks of discrimination or stigmatization, respect of the autonomy of persons to make decisions, parental anxiety resulting from a false positive test (especially when reporting to parents screening results for untreatable conditions identified as by-products of screening), etc. For disorders where there is not yet confirmation of benefit, it may be prudent to recommend pilot screening and to have a mechanism that can be used to adapt or even to stop a program.