Lindsey Welling1, Anita Boelen2, Terry G J Derks3, Peter C J I Schielen4, Maaike de Vries5, Monique Williams6, Frits A Wijburg7, Annet M Bosch8. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: lindsey.welling@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Laboratory of Endocrinology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.boelen@amc.uva.nl. 3. Section of Metabolic Diseases, Beatrix Children's Hospital, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: t.g.j.derks@umcg.nl. 4. Centre for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: peter.schielen@rivm.nl. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University Medical Center St Radboud Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Maaike.deVries@radboudumc.nl. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia children's Hospital, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.williams@erasmusmc.nl. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: f.a.wijburg@amc.uva.nl. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.m.bosch@amc.uva.nl.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Newborn screening (NBS) for classical galactosemia (CG) was introduced in the Netherlands in 2007. Multiple screening methods have been used since, and currently a two-tier system is used, with residual enzyme activity of galactose-1-phosphate-uridyltransferase (GALT) and total galactose concentration in dried blood spots as the primary and secondary markers. As it is essential to monitor effectiveness of NBS programs, we assessed the effectiveness of different screening methods used over time (primary aim), and aimed to identify and investigate patients identified through NBS with previously unreported clinical and biochemical phenotypes (secondary aim). METHODS: The effectiveness of different screening methods and their cut-off values (COVs), as used from 2007 through 2015, was determined, and the clinical and biochemical data of all identified patients were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: All screening methods and COVs resulted in relatively high false-positive rates and low positive predictive values. Total galactose levels in dried blood spots were far above the COV for NBS in all true positive cases. A total of 31 galactosemia patients were identified, and when corrected for a family with three affected siblings, 14% had a previously unreported phenotype and genotype. These individuals did not demonstrate any symptoms at the time of diagnosis while still being exposed to galactose, had galactose-1-phosphate values below detection limit within months after the start of diet, and had previously unreported genotypes. CONCLUSION: Optimization of NBS for CG in the Netherlands is warranted because of the high false-positive rate, which may result in significant harm. Furthermore, a surprising 14% of newborns identified with CG by screening had previously unreported clinical and biochemical phenotypes and genotypes. For them, individualized prognostication and treatment are warranted, in order to avoid unnecessary stringent galactose restriction.
INTRODUCTION: Newborn screening (NBS) for classical galactosemia (CG) was introduced in the Netherlands in 2007. Multiple screening methods have been used since, and currently a two-tier system is used, with residual enzyme activity of galactose-1-phosphate-uridyltransferase (GALT) and total galactose concentration in dried blood spots as the primary and secondary markers. As it is essential to monitor effectiveness of NBS programs, we assessed the effectiveness of different screening methods used over time (primary aim), and aimed to identify and investigate patients identified through NBS with previously unreported clinical and biochemical phenotypes (secondary aim). METHODS: The effectiveness of different screening methods and their cut-off values (COVs), as used from 2007 through 2015, was determined, and the clinical and biochemical data of all identified patients were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: All screening methods and COVs resulted in relatively high false-positive rates and low positive predictive values. Total galactose levels in dried blood spots were far above the COV for NBS in all true positive cases. A total of 31 galactosemiapatients were identified, and when corrected for a family with three affected siblings, 14% had a previously unreported phenotype and genotype. These individuals did not demonstrate any symptoms at the time of diagnosis while still being exposed to galactose, had galactose-1-phosphate values below detection limit within months after the start of diet, and had previously unreported genotypes. CONCLUSION: Optimization of NBS for CG in the Netherlands is warranted because of the high false-positive rate, which may result in significant harm. Furthermore, a surprising 14% of newborns identified with CG by screening had previously unreported clinical and biochemical phenotypes and genotypes. For them, individualized prognostication and treatment are warranted, in order to avoid unnecessary stringent galactose restriction.
Authors: Mendy M Welsink-Karssies; Dewi van Harskamp; Sacha Ferdinandusse; Carla E M Hollak; Hidde H Huidekoper; Mirian C H Janssen; E Marleen Kemper; Janneke G Langendonk; M Estela Rubio-Gozalbo; Maaike C de Vries; Frits A Wijburg; Henk Schierbeek; Annet M Bosch Journal: J Inherit Metab Dis Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 4.982
Authors: M E Rubio-Gozalbo; M Haskovic; A M Bosch; B Burnyte; A I Coelho; D Cassiman; M L Couce; C Dawson; D Demirbas; T Derks; F Eyskens; M T Forga; S Grunewald; J Häberle; M Hochuli; A Hubert; H H Huidekoper; P Janeiro; J Kotzka; I Knerr; P Labrune; Y E Landau; J G Langendonk; D Möslinger; D Müller-Wieland; E Murphy; K Õunap; D Ramadza; I A Rivera; S Scholl-Buergi; K M Stepien; A Thijs; C Tran; R Vara; G Visser; R Vos; M de Vries; S E Waisbren; M M Welsink-Karssies; S B Wortmann; M Gautschi; E P Treacy; G T Berry Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Mendy M Welsink-Karssies; Kim J Oostrom; Merel E Hermans; Carla E M Hollak; Mirian C H Janssen; Janneke G Langendonk; Esmee Oussoren; M Estela Rubio Gozalbo; Maaike de Vries; Gert J Geurtsen; Annet M Bosch Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Adbul Rafiq Khan; Ali Alothaim; Ahmed Alfares; Adil Jowed; Souad Marwan Al Enazi; Saad Mohammed Al Ghamdi; Ahmed Al Seneid; Areej Algahtani; Saleh Al Zahrani; Majid AlFadhel; Omar Aldibasi; Lamya Abdulaziz AlOmair; Rafah Bajudah; Abeer Nawaf Alanazie Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 1.526
Authors: Michel van Weeghel; Lindsey Welling; Eileen P Treacy; Ronald J A Wanders; Sacha Ferdinandusse; Annet M Bosch Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Magd A Kotb; Lobna Mansour; Christine William Shaker Basanti; Wael El Garf; Ghada I Z Ali; Sally T Mostafa El Sorogy; Inas E M Kamel; Naglaa M Kamal Journal: J Adv Res Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 10.479
Authors: Abigail Veldman; Mensiena B G Kiewiet; Margaretha Rebecca Heiner-Fokkema; Marcel R Nelen; Richard J Sinke; Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Els Voorhoeve; Dineke Westra; Martijn E T Dollé; Peter C J I Schielen; Francjan J van Spronsen Journal: Int J Neonatal Screen Date: 2022-02-24