Vinod K Bhutani1, Michael Kaplan2, Bertil Glader3, Michael Cotten4, Jairus Kleinert5, Vamsee Pamula6. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; bhutani@stanford.edu. 2. Faculty of Medicine of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel; 3. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; 4. Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; 5. Advanced Liquid Logic, Durham, North Carolina; and. 6. Baebies, Inc, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Widespread newborn screening on a point-of-care basis could prevent bilirubin neurotoxicity in newborns with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. We evaluated a quantitative G6PD assay on a digital microfluidic platform by comparing its performance with standard clinical methods. METHODS: G6PD activity was measured quantitatively by using digital microfluidic fluorescence and the gold standard fluorescence biochemical test on a convenience sample of 98 discarded blood samples. Twenty-four samples were designated as G6PD deficient. RESULTS: Mean ± SD G6PD activity for normal samples using the digital microfluidic method and the standard method, respectively, was 9.7 ± 2.8 and 11.1 ± 3.0 U/g hemoglobin (Hb), respectively; for G6PD-deficient samples, it was 0.8 ± 0.7 and 1.4 ± 0.9 U/g Hb. Bland-Altman analysis determined a mean difference of -0.96 ± 1.8 U/g Hb between the digital microfluidic fluorescence results and the standard biochemical test results. The lower and upper limits for the digital microfluidic platform were 4.5 to 19.5 U/g Hb for normal samples and 0.2 to 3.7 U/g Hb for G6PD-deficient samples. The lower and upper limits for the Stanford method were 5.5 to 20.7 U/g Hb for normal samples and 0.1 to 2.8 U/g Hb for G6PD-deficient samples. The measured activity discriminated between G6PD-deficient samples and normal samples with no overlap. CONCLUSIONS: Pending further validation, a digital microfluidics platform could be an accurate point-of-care screening tool for rapid newborn G6PD screening.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Widespread newborn screening on a point-of-care basis could prevent bilirubinneurotoxicity in newborns with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. We evaluated a quantitative G6PD assay on a digital microfluidic platform by comparing its performance with standard clinical methods. METHODS:G6PD activity was measured quantitatively by using digital microfluidic fluorescence and the gold standard fluorescence biochemical test on a convenience sample of 98 discarded blood samples. Twenty-four samples were designated as G6PD deficient. RESULTS: Mean ± SD G6PD activity for normal samples using the digital microfluidic method and the standard method, respectively, was 9.7 ± 2.8 and 11.1 ± 3.0 U/g hemoglobin (Hb), respectively; for G6PD-deficient samples, it was 0.8 ± 0.7 and 1.4 ± 0.9 U/g Hb. Bland-Altman analysis determined a mean difference of -0.96 ± 1.8 U/g Hb between the digital microfluidic fluorescence results and the standard biochemical test results. The lower and upper limits for the digital microfluidic platform were 4.5 to 19.5 U/g Hb for normal samples and 0.2 to 3.7 U/g Hb for G6PD-deficient samples. The lower and upper limits for the Stanford method were 5.5 to 20.7 U/g Hb for normal samples and 0.1 to 2.8 U/g Hb for G6PD-deficient samples. The measured activity discriminated between G6PD-deficient samples and normal samples with no overlap. CONCLUSIONS: Pending further validation, a digital microfluidics platform could be an accurate point-of-care screening tool for rapid newborn G6PD screening.
Authors: Rasha Gamaleldin; Iman Iskander; Iman Seoud; Hanan Aboraya; Aleksandr Aravkin; Paul D Sampson; Richard P Wennberg Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-09-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: David S Millington; Ramakrishna Sista; Allen Eckhardt; Jeremy Rouse; Deeksha Bali; Ronald Goldberg; Michael Cotten; Rebecca Buckley; Vamsee Pamula Journal: Semin Perinatol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.300
Authors: Michael Kaplan; James D Hoyer; Marguerite Herschel; Cathy Hammerman; David K Stevenson Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.786
Authors: Ramakrishna S Sista; Allen E Eckhardt; Tong Wang; Carrie Graham; Jeremy L Rouse; Scott M Norton; Vijay Srinivasan; Michael G Pollack; Adviye A Tolun; Deeksha Bali; David S Millington; Vamsee K Pamula Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Michael W Kuzniewicz; Andrea C Wickremasinghe; Yvonne W Wu; Charles E McCulloch; Eileen M Walsh; Soora Wi; Thomas B Newman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Vinod K Bhutani; Ann R Stark; Laura C Lazzeroni; Ronald Poland; Glenn R Gourley; Steve Kazmierczak; Linda Meloy; Anthony E Burgos; Judith Y Hall; David K Stevenson Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Patrick T McGann; Anne M Williams; Graham Ellis; Kathryn E McElhinney; Laurel Romano; Julia Woodall; Thad A Howard; Gerald Tegha; Robert Krysiak; R Murray Lark; E Louise Ander; Carine Mapango; Kenneth I Ataga; Satish Gopal; Nigel S Key; Russell E Ware; Parminder S Suchdev Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2018-11-13
Authors: Ronald J Wong; Cynthia Montiel; Megana Kunda; David K Stevenson; Vinod K Bhutani Journal: Semin Perinatol Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.300
Authors: Laurence Thielemans; Gornpan Gornsawun; Borimas Hanboonkunupakarn; Moo Kho Paw; Pen Porn; Paw Khu Moo; Bart Van Overmeire; Stephane Proux; François Nosten; Rose McGready; Verena I Carrara; Germana Bancone Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2018-01-02