°Ç¸ç³Ô¹Ï

These minutes are draft.

This meeting was held on 25 June 2026 at Victoria Street, London, and via Microsoft Teams.

Attendees

Members

• Professor Sir Mike Richards – Chair Ìý

• Dr Graham Shortland – Consultant Paediatrician (Vice-Chair)  Ìý

• Professor Natalie Armstrong – Implementation Scientist Ìý

• Dr Philippa Brice – Patient and Public Voice (PPV) (co-opted member)Ìý

• Eleanor Cozens – Patient and Public Voice (PPV) Ìý

• Heidi Douglas – Public Health Consultant (co-opted member)Ìý

• Dr Ros Given-Wilson – Chair, Adult Reference Group (ARG) Ìý

• Professor Anneke Lucassen – Clinical GeneticistÌý

• Professor Katherine Payne – Health Economist (co-opted member)Ìý

• Professor Anne-Marie Slowther – Clinical EthicistÌý

• Professor Sian Taylor-Phillips – Chair, Research and Methodology Group (RMG)Ìý

UK Health Department officials Ìý

• Carol Beattie – Senior Medical Officer, Department of Health, Northern IrelandÌýÌý

• Alexander Cruickshank – Team Leader, National Screening Programmes, Scottish GovernmentÌý

• Hayley Pareas – Screening Policy Manager, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)Ìý

• Heather Payne – Senior Medical Officer, Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Welsh GovernmentÌý

• Ray Smith – Head of Screening Policy, DHSC (attended part of the meeting)Ìý

• Dr Tasmin Sommerfield – National Clinical Advisor and Scottish Director of Screening, Screening Oversight and Assurance ScotlandÌý

°¿²ú²õ±ð°ù±¹±ð°ù²õ Ìý

• Martin Allaby – Consultant in Public Health, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)ÌýÌý

• Harrison Carter – Screening Director, NHS EnglandÌý

• David Elliman – Clinical lead for NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme (attended part of the meeting)Ìý

• Gemma Ferguson – Consultant obstetrician/Phd student, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University BelfastÌý

• Diane Mathews – Public Health, States of Guernsey Ìý

• Luke McGeoch, Public Health Registrar, Immunisation and Vaccine Preventable Diseases Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)Ìý

• Zosia Miedzybrodzka – Clinical Lead, Scottish Genomics Network Ìý

• Lisa Saunders – Public Health, Isle of ManÌý

• Sarah Snarey – Screening Programmes, Government of JerseyÌý

• Susan Spillane – Assistant Director, Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) Ireland (attended part of the meeting)Ìý

Secretariat  Ìý

• Andy De Souza – Senior Evidence Review Manager, Targeted Screening (attended part of the meeting)Ìý

• Rebecca Dliwayo – Senior Evidence Review Manager, Horizon ScanningÌý

• Jo Harcombe – Head of UK NSC Information and Engagement ManagementÌý

• Mike Harris – Head of UK NSC Transparency and Public UnderstandingÌý

• Peggie Huangfu – Senior Evidence Review Manager, Targeted ScreeningÌý

• Ailsa Johnson – Secretariat Network ConvenorÌý

• Silvia Lombardo – Modelling Lead  Ìý

• Anne Mackie – Director of Programmes, UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC)

• Carolina Martinelli – Targeted Screening LeadÌý

• Zeenat Mauthoor – Secretariat Expert Committee and Policy Liaison Manager  Ìý

• Omaer Syed – Senior Evidence Review Manager, Horizon ScanningÌý

• David Thompson – Senior Evidence Review ManagerÌý

• Katy Town – Horizon Scanning LeadÌý

• Cristina Visintin – Research Lead  Ìý

±õ²Ô±¹¾±³Ù±ð»åÌý

• Hayley Jones, Professor of Medical Statistics, University of Bristol, Bristol Evidence Synthesis for Screening (BESS)ÌýÌý

• Ruth Brassington, Systematic Reviewer, BESSÌý

Apologies from Members:Ìý

• Dr Sharon Hillier – Chair, Fetal, Maternal and Child Health group (FMCH) Ìý

• Professor Chris Hyde – Public Health SpecialistÌý

• Dr Bethany Shinkins – Test Expert Ìý

Welcome and apologiesÌýÌý

The Committee Chair, Prof Mike Richards, welcomed all to the meeting.Ìý

The Chair reminded attendees of the confidential nature of the discussions, presentations and papers for the meeting and reiterated that these should not be communicated outside the meeting until their publication on the UK NSC website.ÌýÌýÌý

The meeting was attended by 10 members and quorate.ÌýÌý

The Chair confirmed that John Marshall, UK NSC Evidence Lead, has now retired. John’s work and impact to drive the UK NSC and its evidence review process has been significant in shaping the work of the Committee and the evidence team over many years, and he will be truly missed. Members joined the Chair in expressing their appreciation and best wishes.Ìý

Call for any new declarations of interestsÌý

No new declarations of interest relevant to the meeting were raised.Ìý

Minutes of the last meetingÌý

The Committee approved the minutes from the 26 March 2026 meeting as a true and accurate record.ÌýÌý

There were 5 actions from the March meeting.

Action 1: the Secretariat team will add HPV genotyping evidence summary to the UK NSC workplan for 2026 to 2027 and update and review at a future meeting – completedÌýÌý

Action 2: the Secretariat team will inform the open call submitter on the outcome of the evidence map for inherited cardiac conditions (ICCs) and confirm that an evidence summary will be commissioned in due course – completedÌý

Action 3: the Secretariat team will add ICCs evidence summary to the UK NSC workplan for 2026 to 2027 to be commissioned and then update and review at a future meeting – completedÌý

Action 4: the Secretariat team will inform the open call submitter of the outcome of the evidence map for Lynch syndrome and confirm that an analytic framework will be commissioned in due course – completedÌý

Action 5: the Secretariat team will add Lynch syndrome analytic framework to the UK NSC workplan for 2026 to 2027 to be commissioned and then update and review at a future meeting – completedÌý

Matters arising – Director’s updateÌý

Prof Anne Mackie provided a verbal update on the following topics.

Prostate cancerÌý

The Secretary of State, James Murray accepted the UK NSC recommendation on prostate cancer and confirmed that the Government will commit over £20 million to improve prostate cancer research and treatment, including improving access to a major research trial for Black men – which is a welcomed move.Ìý

GRAILÌý

The UK NSC awaits the publication of the data from this study, however as the study looks at ‘stage shift’ to determine if a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood test could reduce the incidence of late-stage Stage III and IV cancers, the UK NSC has considered stage shift and published a . The UK NSC continues to be in talks with the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and NHS England (NHSE) about the next steps.Ìý

EquipoISEÌý

Agreement to pursue this work is being sought at senior civil service level with senior leaders supportive and aware of this large-scale in-service evaluation (ISE). A more thorough update will be provided at the November UK NSC meeting.ÌýÌýÌý

Lung cancerÌý

The roll out of the lung cancer screening programme in England is progressing well.ÌýÌý

It was noted that in the English programme individuals identified through age and smoking status are offered a risk assessment conversation to consider additional risk factors as well as intervention for current smokers.ÌýÌý

Scotland is currently working to plan a phased implementation of lung cancer screening, starting in areas of highest deprivation. The Scottish pathway will align with the English one, and the Welsh one will do the same.Ìý

In Wales, the programme is planned to roll out across all areas of Wales using a phased approach, starting with the upper age range, and gradually expanding to the other eligible age groups.

The Northern Ireland Health Minister has recently agreed that funding be provided to allow planning work on a targeted lung screening programme to commence later this year.ÌýÌý

Cytomegalovirus (CMV)Ìý

Cristina Visintin presented on the extensive work by the UK NSC on this condition which included a systematic review (SR) on newborn screening, and an evidence map on antenatal screening for cytomegalovirus (CMV).Ìý

The SR found that current tests, of saliva and dried blood spots, can identify most babies with congenital CMV. However, there is still limited evidence on which babies are likely to develop long-term health problems. Screening all newborns could help find more babies with CMV, but it may also lead to unnecessary worry, and follow-up or treatment for babies who may never be affected. Overall, for newborn screening, more research is needed to compare screening with standard care in order to determine whether screening delivers more benefits than harms.Ìý

The evidence map on antenatal screening for CMV found that some blood tests in early pregnancy may help identify women with primary CMV infection, which can sometimes lead to serious harm for the baby. There is evidence that oral valganciclovir may reduce the chance of CMV passing to the fetus, but more high-quality research is needed as only one published randomised controlled trial (RCT) was identified. Due to the volume of evidence, a further literature review is justified.Ìý

It was noted that this topic was discussed at the Research Methodology Group (RMG). Members recognised there is significant uncertainty regarding both antenatal and newborn CMV screening, particularly around who would benefit, treatment safety, and the lack of clear pathways for asymptomatic babies. The group thought that research was needed to further understand disease burden and variation in current practice, as well as assessing whether antenatal or newborn screening would offer clear net benefit.Ìý

The UK NSC, FMCH reference group and RMG noted that while there are not any UK guidelines on CMV, there are well respected European consensus guidelines, though it was not clear how this guidance was followed in practice.ÌýÌý

and received 103 stakeholder comments, which were shared with the FMCH reference group.Ìý

Members supported the need to raise awareness of CMV with the relevant royal colleges. This follows the numerous personal accounts in the consultation responses which indicated patients, parents and clinicians had limited awareness of the infection and the significant impact it may have on babies and their families.ÌýÌý

The Committee supported and approved the following recommendations, that:Ìý

• newborn screening for CMV is not recommended, as there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that such a screening programme would offer clear benefits over existing clinical management – further studies comparing screening with standard care are needed to determine whether it delivers more benefits than harms for childrenÌý

• further work should be commissioned to formally review the body of evidence on antenatal screening which was retrieved by the evidence map – the outcome of this would be the subject of a future consultation exerciseÌý

• the Secretariat would write to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) to alert the colleges to the work of the committee and the consultation commentsÌý

Action 1: UK NSC Secretariat to commission an evidence summary on CMV in antenatal screening.

Action 2: UK NSC Secretariat to write to RCOG and RCM about the consultation responses and discuss whether they should consider raising awareness and developing possible materials for both staff and parents about CMV.Ìý

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)Ìý

Peggie Huangfu presented the work and findings from the Ìý

The UK NSC previously reviewed the evidence on screening for COPD in 2013 and 2018, which, both times, resulted in a recommendation not to introduce population screening.ÌýÌý

The 2025 evidence map considered the volume and type of evidence on the effect of screening for COPD in previously undiagnosed adults on morbidity, mortality, health-related quality of life and smoking cessation rates.Ìý

The evidence map found no robust evidence that population screening for COPD would improve morbidity, mortality or health-related quality of life. While some studies suggested potential benefits, most analyses showed no statistically significant differences in key outcomes. The evidence on the impact of screening on smoking cessation was found to be mixed, with some benefits observed when screening was combined with smoking cessation interventions, but overall findings remained uncertain. The evidence was considered insufficient to support population screening for COPD, and further review and synthesis was unlikely to change the UK NSC’s current position.Ìý

The 12-week consultation received 7 stakeholder comments, all of which supported the recommendation not to introduce population screening, while emphasising that COPD remains an important health problem and may warrant consideration as a targeted screening topic.Ìý

Key consultation themes included potential integration with the lung cancer screening programme, possible consideration of COPD as a targeted screening topic via the UK NSC open call, perceived policy divergence between UK countries, variation in smoking cessation provision, and concerns about spirometry regulation.ÌýÌý

Members discussed whether the lung cancer screening programme might provide an opportunity to learn more about identifying COPD in those at higher risk. Prof Mackie informed the Committee that the Secretariat had discussed research, but in the end no suitable proposals were received.ÌýÌý

Members agreed that, based on the findings of the evidence map and in light of comments received, a population screening programme for COPD should not be introduced and that this topic should be archived, noting that consideration for a targeted screening proposal can be submitted via the UK NSC’s open call for topics which starts on 1 July 2026.ÌýÌý

Action 3: UK NSC to archive population screening for COPD.Ìý

Action 4: UK NSC Secretariat to contact the submitters from the consultation to inform them of its decision to archive population screening for COPD.Ìý

Placenta function screening to reduce the risk of stillbirthÌý

Hayley Jones and Ruth Brassington from the Bristol Evidence Synthesis for Screening (BESS) group joined the meeting to present on the evidence for placental function screening to reduce the risk of stillbirth.Ìý

The UK NSC review on screening to prevent stillbirth in 2019 had found insufficient evidence to recommend a population screening programme due to limited evidence on accurate predictive tests, management strategies for women identified as being at risk, effective interventions to reduce stillbirth, and the optimal timing of screening to reduce risk without causing harm.ÌýÌý

The scope was refined for the 2025 review to focus specifically on factors related to placental dysfunction, rather than all stillbirths. The evidence map addressed 3 questions on:

• the volume and type of evidence available on the accuracy of screening tests used to identify pregnancies at risk of stillbirth caused by placenta related problems
• strategies used to monitor pregnancies at risk of stillbirth caused by placenta related problems
• interventions to reduce the risk of stillbirth caused by placenta related problems other than elective birth.Ìý

The evidence base included numerous studies of test accuracy, with some evidence suggesting moderate to high accuracy for combinations of ultrasound measures and biomarkers. There was less evidence on monitoring and treatment after women had been identified as being at high risk, although the limited evidence suggested that Doppler monitoring and Enoxaparin may reduce the risk of stillbirth.ÌýÌý

It was noted that the FMCH group had reviewed and provided sign-off on the evidence map conclusions and the recommendation that further work should be commissioned on this topic.ÌýÌý

The Committee discussed whether the scope of any further work should remain focused on stillbirth associated with placental dysfunction, or whether related outcomes such as preterm birth and pre-eclampsia should also be considered in the same review. It was noted that stillbirth, preterm birth and pre-eclampsia reviews have historically been considered separately, following earlier engagement and guidance with RCOG.

Members agreed that further work in this area should be taken forward but that careful scoping would be required. Engagement with relevant clinical experts, including RCOG, was suggested to inform this scoping exercise to determine whether future work should remain focused on placental function screening to reduce the risk of stillbirth or whether related outcomes should be considered within a broader or separate scope.Ìý

Action 5: the Secretariat to undertake further scoping work, including engagement with relevant clinical experts and RCOG, on placental function screening to reduce the risk of stillbirth.Ìý

Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) in pregnancyÌý

Omaer Syed presented the evidence map and consultation comments for IDA in pregnancy.ÌýÌý

The UK NSC last reviewed the evidence for IDA in 2021 and recommended that a population screening programme should not be introduced, due to insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for IDA in pregnancy.Ìý

The UK NSC’s 2025 evidence map looked at 3 key questions on the volume and type of evidence for:ÌýÌý

• the maternal and infant outcomes associated with untreated iron deficiency (ID), with or without mild or moderate anaemia in pregnancyÌý

• the benefits and harms of treating pregnant women for IDAÌý

• the benefits and harms of screening for IDA during pregnancyÌý

The evidence map found that of the studies identified, only 3 examined untreated ID/IDA in pregnancy and that these studies consistently found that untreated ID/IDA is associated with worse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The studies relating to the benefits and harms of treating pregnant women for IDA were mixed, with some studies showing improvements in outcomes with iron treatment (for example, for pre-eclampsia and caesarean delivery), while others showed little or no benefit. Overall, the evidence remains limited and therefore will not change the current recommendation not to screen for IDA in pregnancy.Ìý

The UK NSC ran a . It received 6 comments, with respondents generally disagreeing with the findings of the evidence map and arguing for the implementation of screening. Ìý

Members discussed the distinction between screening and clinical care, noting that they are separate processes. The clinical practice guidelines for IDA in pregnancy are covered by the  a²Ô»å .Ìý

The UK NSC recognises IDA as an important health condition. However, members agreed that the volume and type of evidence is currently insufficient to justify a further in-depth review at this stage and a population screening programme for IDA should not be recommended. It was agreed that the topic should remain under the UK NSC’s regular review process. Members confirmed that they were content with the proposed responses to the consultation comments.Ìý

Antenatal and postnatal mental health conditionsÌý

Omaer Syed presented the evidence map and consultation responses for antenatal and postnatal mental health conditions.Ìý

The UK NSC’s last review in 2019 found limited evidence on effective screening tests and on the effectiveness of interventions for antenatal mental health conditions and postnatal depression and recommended that a population screening programme should not be introduced.Ìý

The 2025 evidence map considered 5 questions to see whether any significant evidence had been published in the interim period and if further synthesis work should be considered. Ìý

1. What is the volume and type of evidence on the reported accuracy of screening tools to detect common mental health conditions during pregnancy?

2. What is the volume and type of evidence on the reported accuracy of screening tools to detect postnatal depression?

3. What is the volume and type of evidence on the benefits of pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention (alone or in combination) in women with screen-detected common mental health conditions during pregnancy?

4. What is the volume and type of evidence on the benefits of early pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention (alone or in combination) in women with screen-detected postnatal depression?

5. Is there evidence that clinical detection and management are currently well implemented in the UK?

Although the overall volume of evidence was large, evidence for individual screening tools was limited and showed mixed accuracy. Some interventions showed benefit, but the lack of a clear effective screening test, potential intervention harms, and insufficient evidence on UK clinical detection and management meant that the evidence was not sufficient to support a change in the Committee’s recommendation.Ìý

The UK NSC held a and received 6 stakeholder responses. Some supported the evidence map recommendation and highlighted implementation issues, including equity, resources, workforce capacity, governance and referral pathways. Other comments referred to groups or issues outside the scope of the population screening review, including targeted screening for populations such as people with learning disabilities, neurodivergent people and individuals experiencing pregnancy loss. These were noted as important areas but were considered more appropriate for the open call proposal route for new or targeted screening topics.ÌýÌý

Members confirmed they were content with the evidence map findings and the responses to the consultation submissions. Members agreed that the current recommendation should be maintained that a population screening programme for antenatal and postnatal mental health conditions should not be introduced. The evidence was considered insufficient to justify an updated evidence review at this stage and members agreed that the topic should remain under regular review.Ìý

Pancreatic cancerÌý

Andy De Souza presented the evidence map on targeted screening for pancreatic cancer in people at high risk. Screening for pancreatic cancer is not currently included on the UK NSC recommendations list, and a recommendation has not been made previously on this topic. An evidence map was commissioned following a proposal received through the 2024 open call, which suggested screening people at high risk of developing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using a liquid biopsy test.Ìý

The evidence map considered existing guidelines or recommendations, the accuracy of screening tests and the outcomes of screening. The identified guidelines all supported screening in high-risk groups. However, most were based on expert opinion or a combination of expert opinion and non-systematic review evidence. Where quality assessment had been undertaken within the guidelines, the evidence was generally reported as moderate to low quality. Ten out of 16 guidelines made recommendations on screening tests, with broad agreement that imaging-based surveillance, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic ultrasound, was the preferred approach.Ìý

The majority of identified studies looked at accuracy in liquid biopsy-based tests. Only one study looked at imaging-based tests, which was the type of test recommended by guidelines. Furthermore, the liquid biopsy-based tests were based on emerging biomarkers which are not fully validated for clinical use.ÌýÌý

It was noted that, although some studies suggested benefits in terms of earlier diagnosis and longer survival, the evidence was limited and the study design susceptible to bias, which may overestimate the benefits of screening.ÌýÌý

The Committee considered whether further evidence synthesis should be undertaken, noting the need for clarity on what level and type of evidence would be required for targeted screening programmes. The topic of assessing test accuracy in the relevant high-risk population was highlighted, alongside the limitations of case-control style evidence that compares individuals already diagnosed by screening with those diagnosed through usual care.Ìý

It was noted that the findings were shared with ARG members, who were supportive of the recommendation that no further work should be commissioned.Ìý

The Committee confirmed the recommendation that the current volume and type of evidence were insufficient to justify further evidence synthesis work by the UK NSC at this time on pancreatic cancer. It was agreed that any future requests to examine targeted screening for pancreatic cancer in people at high risk should be submitted through the open call for topics.Ìý

Stakeholder updateÌý

Jo Harcombe presented an update of the UK NSC’s recent engagement and stakeholder activity.Ìý

The publication of the prostate cancer screening recommendation and its subsequent acceptance by the Secretary of State had generated significant communications and stakeholder activity including the media briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre (SMC), and an article publication in the British Journal of Urology International (BJUI).Ìý

With the , a suite of blog articles had been published to give stakeholders clearer guidance to support them with submitting proposals:Ìý

• Ìý

• Ìý

• Ìý

• Ìý

In June the UK NSC hosted and blogged about its latest online seminar on , an event that attracted more than 200 attendees.Ìý

Stakeholders and members of the public can attend these free seminars. Details of future seminars are available on the UK NSC seminars webpage. The page also contains links to access PDF files of previous seminar presentations.

Fetal Maternal Child Health (FMCH) groupÌý

Prof Anne Mackie provided the UK NSC with a confidential update from the April meeting.ÌýÌý

It was noted that public consultations have recently taken place on targeted antenatal screening for , screening for in newborns, and Ìý

Adult Refence Group (ARG) updateÌý

The ARG Chair, Dr Ros Given-Wilson, provided a confidential update from the May 2026 meeting noting that 3 public consultations had been launched since March:

• screening for
• the use of
• screening for Ìý

Research and Methodology Group (RMG) updateÌý

Dr Sian Taylor-Philips, Chair of the RMG, gave a verbal update on the confidential work of the group.Ìý

Any other businessÌý

Members noted that due to the closing just before the committee meeting, Chair’s action would need to be taken on this topic.ÌýÌý

Responses to the consultation comments had been prepared and reviewed by FMCH, which was content with them. The papers would be circulated to members for comment and Chair’s action sought.ÌýÌý

Date of the next meeting

Thursday 26 November 2026

Chair’s action

Newborn screening for biliary atresia Ìý

Biliary atresia (BA) is a condition which the UK NSC keeps under regular review. The UK NSC last examined the evidence on this condition in 2017 and recommended that a population screening programme should not be introduced for BA because there is no reliable screening test that would be able to detect the disease within the first weeks of the baby’s life, and no evidence that screened babies would be able to have the surgery (Kasai portoenterostomy) at a younger age than unscreened babies.ÌýÌý

As part of the UK NSC’s work to keep recommendations under regular review, an evidence map was commissioned in 2020. An additional question looking specifically at stool colour cards was added to the scope of the evidence map following an annual call for topic submission in 2020. The findings of the evidence map were that there was sufficient evidence to justify commissioning an evidence summary.Ìý

In 2025 the UK NSC commissioned an evidence summary for BA which focused on 3 key questions.

1) What is the accuracy of screening tests to detect BA in newborns?ÌýÌý

2) What is the reported age at surgery/time to surgery for BA (Kasai portoenterostomy) in the UK?ÌýÌý

3) Does screening for BA using stool colour cards improve time to surgery and clinical outcomes?Ìý

The findings of the evidence summary were that for question 1, the evidence for both dried blood spot (DBS) and stool colour card accuracy remains limited and uncertain. DBS studies reported sensitivities and specificities above 90%, but with wide confidence intervals; while stool colour card studies showed inconsistent sensitivity and low positive predictive values (around 4 to 6% in settings most comparable to the UK), despite generally high specificity. Overall, limitations in the quantity, quality, consistency and UK applicability of the evidence mean that criterion 4 of the UK NSC criteria for a population screening programme (a simple, safe, precise and validated screening test) is not currently met.

For question 2 (on the reported age at surgery), based on available data it was reported that the median age at surgery in the UK has improved from 54 days to 48 days and is comparable to countries with BA screening programmes. Outcomes worsenÌýsignificantly if surgery occurs after 100 days. This suggests that clinical management is already well optimised, so UK NSC criterion 15 continues to be met.ÌýÌý

Finally, for question 3, although stool colour card screening was associated with earlier surgery and some improved outcomes, there is no high-quality randomised trial evidence, and outcomes are similar to those already achieved in the UK without screening. Therefore, criteria 11 and 13 cannot be considered met.Ìý

Reason for Chair’s action Ìý

The evidence summary for BA was presented to the FMCH group at its meeting in January 2026. Members were then given an extended period to further review the documents and send comments before it was agreed for the topic to move to the public consultation phase. The UK NSC then ran a 12-week public consultation from 25 February 2026 to 20 May 2026. The consultation received a total of 4 comments.

As the consultation closed after the FMCH’s April meeting, comments were shared with FMCH electronically to review, and this review was not complete ahead of the June UK NSC meeting. The UK NSC secretariat did however raise this topic under any other business and agreed that it would send the document on BA to Committee members to review and comment. To avoid delaying a recommendation on BA  it was agreed that Chair’s action should be taken.    Ìý

Decision Ìý

°Õ³ó±ð FMCH group and the UK NSC and Chair noted the findings of the evidence summary for population screening for BA alongside the comments received during the consultation phase. They expressed appreciation for all comments received and acknowledged the experiences of families affected by late diagnosis. The UK NSC and Chair recognised the importance of timely diagnosis for improving outcomes and noted that UK clinical management is well established, although delays in diagnosis can still occur. Advances in technology such as the use of apps to assist parents to identify stool colours was raised by the Chair as a digital advancement which could be of assistance with timely diagnosis but remains a tool which is in its infancy stages.

Based on the findings of the evidence summary it was agreed that a population screening programme for biliary atresia should not be introduced and that this topic would remain on the UK NSC’s list of recommendations and be kept under regular review.

Chair’s confirmation

I confirm that I have taken Chair’s action in relation to the decisions recorded above.

Signed:ÌýProf Sir Mike Richards, Chair,ÌýUK NSC

Date:Ìý29 July, 2026Ìý