Literature DB >> 22271776

Novel strategies in newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: a prospective controlled study.

Annette M M Vernooij-van Langen1, J Gerard Loeber, Bert Elvers, Ralf H Triepels, Johan J P Gille, Catharina P B Van der Ploeg, Sandra Reijntjens, Edward Dompeling, Jeannette E Dankert-Roelse.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) is included in many routine programmes but current strategies have considerable drawbacks, such as false-positive tests, equivocal diagnosis and detection of carriers.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the test performance of two newborn screening strategies for CF. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In 2008 and 2009, CF screening was added to the routine screening programme as a prospective study in part of The Netherlands.
INTERVENTIONS: Two strategies were performed in all newborns. In the first strategy, concentrations of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) and pancreatitis-associated protein (PAP) were measured. In the second method, samples with IRT ≥60 μg/litre were analysed for 36 CFTR mutations, followed by sequencing when a single mutation was detected. Tests were positive only with two identified CFTR mutations. MAIN OUTCOME: Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of both screening strategies.
RESULTS: 145,499 infants were screened. The IRT/PAP approach showed a sensitivity of 95.0%, a specificity of 99.897% and a PPV of 12.3%. Test properties for the IRT/DNA/sequencing strategy were respectively 100%, 100% and 64.9%. Combining both strategies (IRT/PAP/DNA/sequencing) led to a sensitivity of 95.0%, a specificity of 100% and a PPV of 87.5%.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, all strategies performed well. Although there was no statistically significant difference in test performance, the IRT/DNA/sequencing strategy detected one infant that was missed by IRT/PAP (/DNA/sequencing). IRT/PAP may be the optimal choice if the use of DNA technology must be avoided. If identification of carriers and equivocal diagnosis is considered an important disadvantage, IRT/PAP/DNA/sequencing may be the best choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22271776     DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200730

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  14 in total

1.  The influence of sex, gestational age, birth weight, blood transfusion, and timing of the heel prick on the pancreatitis-associated protein concentration in newborn screening for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Annette M M Vernooij-van Langen; J Gerard Loeber; Bert Elvers; Ralf H Triepels; Jos Roefs; Johan J Gille; Sandra Reijntjens; Edward Dompeling; Jeannette E Dankert-Roelse
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 4.982

2.  Clinical evaluation of the Nanoduct sweat test system in the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis after newborn screening.

Authors:  Annette Vernooij-van Langen; Edward Dompeling; Jan-Bart Yntema; Bert Arets; Harm Tiddens; Gerard Loeber; Jeannette Dankert-Roelse
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 3.183

3.  [Update on cystic fibrosis : From neonatal screening to causal treatment].

Authors:  Olaf Sommerburg; Mark Oliver Wielpütz
Journal:  Radiologie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-10-24

Review 4.  Cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Felix Ratjen; Scott C Bell; Steven M Rowe; Christopher H Goss; Alexandra L Quittner; Andrew Bush
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 52.329

5.  Impact on parents of HLA-DQ2/DQ8 genotyping in healthy children from coeliac families.

Authors:  Margreet M S Wessels; Sabine L Vriezinga; Sybille Koletzko; Katharina Werkstetter; Gemma Castillejo-De Villasante; Raanan Shamir; Corina Hartman; Hein Putter; Sylvia M van der Pal; Cisca Wijmenga; Enzo Bravi; M Luisa Mearin
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Prospective and parallel assessments of cystic fibrosis newborn screening protocols in the Czech Republic: IRT/DNA/IRT versus IRT/PAP and IRT/PAP/DNA.

Authors:  Veronika Krulišová; Miroslava Balaščaková; Veronika Skalická; Tereza Piskáčková; Andrea Holubová; Jana Paděrová; Petra Křenková; Lenka Dvořáková; Dana Zemková; Petr Kračmar; Blanka Chovancová; Věra Vávrová; Alexandra Stambergová; Felix Votava; Milan Macek
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 7.  False negative newborn screen and neonatal cholestasis in a premature child with cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  J F Heidendael; M M Tabbers; I De Vreede
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 3.183

8.  Improving test properties for neonatal cystic fibrosis screening in the Netherlands before the nationwide start by May 1st 2011.

Authors:  Martina C Cornel; Johan J P Gille; J Gerard Loeber; Annette M M Vernooij-van Langen; Jeannette Dankert-Roelse; Piet A Bolhuis
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.982

9.  Parental knowledge reduces long term anxiety induced by false-positive test results after newborn screening for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  A M M Vernooij-van Langen; S M van der Pal; A J T Reijntjens; J G Loeber; E Dompeling; J E Dankert-Roelse
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab Rep       Date:  2014-08-13

10.  Defining the disease liability of variants in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene.

Authors:  Patrick R Sosnay; Karen R Siklosi; Fredrick Van Goor; Kyle Kaniecki; Haihui Yu; Neeraj Sharma; Anabela S Ramalho; Margarida D Amaral; Ruslan Dorfman; Julian Zielenski; David L Masica; Rachel Karchin; Linda Millen; Philip J Thomas; George P Patrinos; Mary Corey; Michelle H Lewis; Johanna M Rommens; Carlo Castellani; Christopher M Penland; Garry R Cutting
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2013-08-25       Impact factor: 38.330

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.