Literature DB >> 19246252

European best practice guidelines for cystic fibrosis neonatal screening.

Carlo Castellani1, Kevin W Southern, Keith Brownlee, Jeannette Dankert Roelse, Alistair Duff, Michael Farrell, Anil Mehta, Anne Munck, Rodney Pollitt, Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus, Bridget Wilcken, Manfred Ballmann, Carlo Corbetta, Isabelle de Monestrol, Philip Farrell, Maria Feilcke, Claude Férec, Silvia Gartner, Kevin Gaskin, Jutta Hammermann, Nataliya Kashirskaya, Gerard Loeber, Milan Macek, Gita Mehta, Andreas Reiman, Paolo Rizzotti, Alec Sammon, Dorota Sands, Alan Smyth, Olaf Sommerburg, Toni Torresani, Georges Travert, Annette Vernooij, Stuart Elborn.   

Abstract

There is wide agreement on the benefits of NBS for CF in terms of lowered disease severity, decreased burden of care, and reduced costs. Risks are mainly associated with disclosure of carrier status and diagnostic uncertainty. When starting a NBS programme for CF it is important to take precautions in order to minimise avoidable risks and maximise benefits. In Europe more than 25 screening programmes have been developed, with quite marked variation in protocol design. However, given the wide geographic, ethnic, and economic variations, complete harmonisation of protocols is not appropriate. There is little evidence to support the use of IRT alone as a second tier, without involving DNA mutation analysis. However, if IRT/DNA testing does not lead to the desired specificity/sensitivity ratio in a population, a screening programme based on IRT/IRT may be used. Sweat chloride concentration remains the gold standard for discriminating between NBS false and true positives, but age-related changes in sweat chloride should be taken into account. CF phenotypes associated with less severe disease often have intermediate or normal sweat chloride concentrations. Programmes should include arrangements for counselling and management of infants where the diagnosis is not clear-cut. All newborns identified by NBS should be managed according to internationally accepted guidelines. CF centre care and the availability of necessary medication are essential prerequisites before the introduction of NBS programmes. Clear explanation to families of the process of screening and of implications of normal and abnormal results is central to the success of CF NBS programmes. Effective communication is especially important when parents are told that their child is affected or is a carrier. When establishing a NBS programme for CF, attention should be given to ensuring timely and appropriate processing of results, to minimise potential stress for families.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19246252     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcf.2009.01.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cyst Fibros        ISSN: 1569-1993            Impact factor:   5.482


  50 in total

1.  A decision-tree approach to cost comparison of newborn screening strategies for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Janelle Wells; Marjorie Rosenberg; Gary Hoffman; Michael Anstead; Philip M Farrell
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2012-01-30       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Newborn screening programmes in Europe; arguments and efforts regarding harmonization. Part 2. From screening laboratory results to treatment, follow-up and quality assurance.

Authors:  Peter Burgard; Kathrin Rupp; Martin Lindner; Gisela Haege; Tessel Rigter; Stephanie S Weinreich; J Gerard Loeber; Domenica Taruscio; Luciano Vittozzi; Martina C Cornel; Georg F Hoffmann
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2012-04-28       Impact factor: 4.982

3.  Newborn screening.

Authors:  James J Pitt
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2010-05

4.  Cystic fibrosis papers of the year 2009.

Authors:  Ian M Balfour-Lynn
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  One-year evaluation of a neonatal screening program for cystic fibrosis in Switzerland. Problems.

Authors:  Heinz-Harald Abholz
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Polish 4 years' experience with CFTR sequencing strategy.

Authors:  Agnieszka Sobczyńska-Tomaszewska; Mariusz Ołtarzewski; Kamila Czerska; Katarzyna Wertheim-Tysarowska; Dorota Sands; Jarosław Walkowiak; Jerzy Bal; Tadeusz Mazurczak
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Opportunities for quality improvement in cystic fibrosis newborn screening.

Authors:  Molly K Groose; Richard Reynolds; Zhanhai Li; Philip M Farrell
Journal:  J Cyst Fibros       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Experimental assessment of splicing variants using expression minigenes and comparison with in silico predictions.

Authors:  Neeraj Sharma; Patrick R Sosnay; Anabela S Ramalho; Christopher Douville; Arianna Franca; Laura B Gottschalk; Jeenah Park; Melissa Lee; Briana Vecchio-Pagan; Karen S Raraigh; Margarida D Amaral; Rachel Karchin; Garry R Cutting
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 4.878

9.  New challenges in the diagnosis and management of cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Hara Levy; Philip M Farrell
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 10.  Measuring and improving respiratory outcomes in cystic fibrosis lung disease: opportunities and challenges to therapy.

Authors:  Edith T Zemanick; J Kirk Harris; Steven Conway; Michael W Konstan; Bruce Marshall; Alexandra L Quittner; George Retsch-Bogart; Lisa Saiman; Frank J Accurso
Journal:  J Cyst Fibros       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 5.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.