Neonatal screening (NBS) was initiated in Europe during the 1960s with the screening for phenylketonuria. The panel of screened disorders (“conditions”) then gradually expanded, with a boost in the late 1990s with the introduction of tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), making it possible to screen for 40–50 conditions using a single blood spot. The most recent additions to screening programmes (screening for cystic fibrosis, severe combined immunodeficiency and spinal muscular atrophy) were assisted by or realised through the introduction of molecular technologies. For this survey, we collected data from 51 European countries. We report the developments between 2010 and 2020 and highlight the achievements reached with the progress made in this period. We also identify areas where further progress can be made, mainly by exchanging knowledge and learning from experiences in neighbouring countries. Between 2010 and 2020, most NBS programmes in geographical Europe matured considerably, both in terms of methodology (modernised) and with regard to the panel of conditions screened (expanded). These developments indicate that more collaboration in Europe through European organisations is gaining momentum. We can only accomplish the timely detection of newborn infants potentially suffering from one of the many rare diseases and take appropriate action by working together.

The EAS FHSC is an international initiative involving a network of investigators interested in FH from around 70 countries.• Information on FH prevalence is lacking in most countries; where available, data tend to align with contemporary estimates.• FH diagnosis and management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment.• In most countries diagnosis primarily relies on DLCN criteria, and less frequently on Simon Broom or MEDPED.• Therapy for FH is not universally reimbursed, and criteria vary across countries. Access to PCSK9i and apheresis is limited.

Most participants who were referred from a national database of universal screening results for hypercholesterolemia had genetically confirmed FH. Data for family history may not suffice for reliable identification of patients through selective and cascade screening.

No abstract

ImportanceFamilial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an underdiagnosed and undertreated genetic disorder that leads to premature morbidity and mortality due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Familial hypercholesterolemia affects 1 in 200 to 250 people around the world of every race and ethnicity. The lack of general awareness of FH among the public and medical community has resulted in only 10% of the FH population being diagnosed and adequately treated. The World Health Organization recognized FH as a public health priority in 1998 during a consultation meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. The World Health Organization report highlighted 11 recommendations to address FH worldwide, from diagnosis and treatment to family screening and education. Research since the 1998 report has increased understanding and awareness of FH, particularly in specialty areas, such as cardiology and lipidology. However, in the past 20 years, there has been little progress in implementing the 11 recommendations to prevent premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in an entire generation of families with FH.ObservationsIn 2018, the Familial Hypercholesterolemia Foundation and the World Heart Federation convened the international FH community to update the 11 recommendations. Two meetings were held: one at the 2018 FH Foundation Global Summit and the other during the 2018 World Congress of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Health. Each meeting served as a platform for the FH community to examine the original recommendations, assess the gaps, and provide commentary on the revised recommendations. The Global Call to Action on Familial Hypercholesterolemia thus represents individuals with FH, advocacy leaders, scientific experts, policy makers, and the original authors of the 1998 World Health Organization report. Attendees from 40 countries brought perspectives on FH from low-, middle-, and high-income regions. Tables listing country-specific government support for FH care, existing country-specific and international FH scientific statements and guidelines, country-specific and international FH registries, and known FH advocacy organizations around the world were created.Conclusions and RelevanceBy adopting the 9 updated public policy recommendations created for this document, covering awareness; advocacy; screening, testing, and diagnosis; treatment; family-based care; registries; research; and cost and value, individual countries have the opportunity to prevent atherosclerotic heart disease in their citizens carrying a gene associated with FH and, likely, all those with severe hypercholesterolemia as well.

ObjectivesTo understand the impact of COVID-19 and public health measures on different social groups, we conducted a mixed-methods study in five countries (‘SEBCOV—social, ethical and behavioural aspects of COVID-19’). Here, we report the results of the online survey.Study design and statistical analysisOverall, 5058 respondents from Thailand, Malaysia, the UK, Italy and Slovenia completed the self-administered survey between May and June 2020. Poststratification weighting was applied, and associations between categorical variables assessed. Frequency counts and percentages were used to summarise categorical data. Associations between categorical variables were assessed using Pearson’s χ2 test. Data were analysed in Stata 15.0ResultsAmong the five countries, Thai respondents reported having been most, and Slovenian respondents least, affected economically. The following factors were associated with greater negative economic impacts: being 18–24 years or 65 years or older; lower education levels; larger households; having children under 18 in the household and and having flexible/no income. Regarding social impact, respondents expressed most concern about their social life, physical health, mental health and well-being.There were large differences between countries in terms of voluntary behavioural change, and in compliance and agreement with COVID-19 restrictions. Overall, self-reported compliance was higher among respondents who self-reported a high understanding of COVID-19. UK respondents felt able to cope the longest and Thai respondents the shortest with only going out for essential needs or work. Many respondents reported seeing news perceived to be fake, the proportion varying between countries, with education level and self-reported levels of understanding of COVID-19.ConclusionsOur data showed that COVID-19 and public health measures have uneven economic and social impacts on people from different countries and social groups. Understanding the factors associated with these impacts can help to inform future public health interventions and mitigate their negative consequences.Trial registration numberTCTR20200401002.

No abstract

No abstract