A comparison of the Netherlands, Norway and UK Familial Hypercholesterolemia screening programmes with implications for target setting and the UK’s NHS Long Term Plan

We sought to determine the most efficacious and cost-effective strategy to follow when developing a national screening programme by comparing and contrasting the national screening programmes of Norway, the Netherlands and the UK. Comparing the detection rates and screening profiles between the Netherlands, Norway, the UK and constituent nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) it is clear that maximising the number of relatives screened per index case leads to identification of the greatest proportion of an FH population. The UK has stated targets to detect 25% of the population of England with FH across the 5 years to 2024 with the NHS Long Term Plan. However, this is grossly unrealistic and, based on pre-pandemic rates, will only be reached in the year 2096. We also modelled the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies: 1) Universal screening of 1-2-year-olds, 2) electronic healthcare record screening, in both cases coupled to reverse cascade screening. We found that index case detection from electronic healthcare records was 56% more efficacious than universal screening and, depending on the cascade screening rate of success, 36%-43% more cost-effective per FH case detected. The UK is currently trialling universal screening of 1–2-year-olds to contribute to national FH detection targets. Our modelling suggests that this is not the most efficacious or cost-effective strategy to follow. For countries looking to develop national FH programmes, screening of electronic healthcare records, coupled to successful cascade screening to blood relatives is likely to be a preferable strategy to follow. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This project was funded by the Department for Employment Northern Ireland to all authors. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data are contained within the manuscript.