Literature DB >> 28529890

Misinformation regarding tandem mass spectrometric vs fluorometric assays to screen newborns for LSDs.

David S Millington1, Deeksha M Bali1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 28529890      PMCID: PMC5429225          DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgmr.2017.04.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Genet Metab Rep        ISSN: 2214-4269


× No keyword cloud information.
Sir – Newborn screening (NBS) programs are actively considering investment in one of two available platforms for multiple lysosomal storage disease (LSD) enzyme testing – tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) or digital microfluidic fluorometry (DMF) system. Both use reagent kits supplied by commercial vendors (Perkin-Elmer Life Sciences and Baebies, Inc., respectively) that are inexpensive and readily available. However, the enormous cost differential for infrastructure, capital investment, personnel and ongoing maintenance between MS/MS and DMF is difficult to justify unless there is substantial evidence of superior performance by the more expensive platform (MS/MS) [1]. We are alarmed that proponents of MS/MS repeatedly make claims to that effect without relevant supporting evidence [1], [2], [3], [4]. The clinical decision point (high risk for an LSD) is made near the LSD assay's low limit of quantification, where pre-analytical factors, including leukocyte count, pseudodeficiency alleles and sample quality cause low enzyme activity that overlaps the high-risk range [5]. In this context, the “analytical/dynamic range” of a method [3], [4] is irrelevant; the appropriate metric for assay performance is the ability to discriminate normal from confirmed positive cases when screening prospectively. Rich data sets (Table 1) are available from two programs screening for LSDs prospectively: Missouri (DMF) [6] and Illinois (UPLC-MS/MS) [7]. These and more recently presented data [8], [9] do not support claims of superior performance by MS/MS. Particularly noteworthy is that the confirmatory rate reported for Fabry disease in Illinois using MS/MS was lower than in an earlier pilot in Illinois using DMF [10]; the latter rate being similar to that reported in neighboring Missouri. We conclude that DMF is at least as effective as MS/MS for high throughput screening of multiple LSDs and recommend that NBS programs consult the Missouri and Illinois programs as part of their due diligence before making a decision that will affect their costs for many years to come.
Table 1

Summary of published results for Fabry disease, Pompe disease, Gaucher disease and Hurler syndrome (MPS I) from programs prospectively screening for multiple LSDs. Generally, DMF has lower false-positive rates and significantly higher PPVs compared with MS/MS. Confirmed positive cases include infantile onset, late onset and undetermined phenotypes (e.g. genotype of unknown significance, unknown onset). Positive predictive value (PPV) is calculated as: the number of confirmed positive/ number of (normal + carrier + pseudodeficient).

Summary of published results for Fabry disease, Pompe disease, Gaucher disease and Hurler syndrome (MPS I) from programs prospectively screening for multiple LSDs. Generally, DMF has lower false-positive rates and significantly higher PPVs compared with MS/MS. Confirmed positive cases include infantile onset, late onset and undetermined phenotypes (e.g. genotype of unknown significance, unknown onset). Positive predictive value (PPV) is calculated as: the number of confirmed positive/ number of (normal + carrier + pseudodeficient).
  4 in total

1.  Newborn Screening for Lysosomal Storage Disorders: Quo Vadis?

Authors:  Roy W A Peake; Deborah L Marsden; Olaf A Bodamer; Michael H Gelb; David S Millington; Frits Wijburg
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 2.  Newborn Screening for Lysosomal Storage Disorders.

Authors:  Roy W A Peake; Olaf A Bodamer
Journal:  J Pediatr Genet       Date:  2016-12-02

Review 3.  Newborn screening for lysosomal storage diseases.

Authors:  Michael H Gelb; C Ronald Scott; Frantisek Turecek
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 8.327

4.  Clinical chemistry and dried blood spots: increasing laboratory utilization by improved understanding of quantitative challenges.

Authors:  Donald H Chace; Víctor R De Jesús; Alan R Spitzer
Journal:  Bioanalysis       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.681

  4 in total
  5 in total

Review 1.  Contribution of tandem mass spectrometry to the diagnosis of lysosomal storage disorders.

Authors:  Monique Piraud; Magali Pettazzoni; Pamela Lavoie; Séverine Ruet; Cécile Pagan; David Cheillan; Philippe Latour; Christine Vianey-Saban; Christiane Auray-Blais; Roseline Froissart
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 4.982

2.  Tandem mass spectrometry assay of β-glucocerebrosidase activity in dried blood spots eliminates false positives detected in fluorescence assay.

Authors:  Pavlina Wolf; Roy N Alcalay; Christopher Liong; Emmaline Cullen; Michael W Pauciulo; William C Nichols; Ziv Gan-Or; Wendy K Chung; Tina Faulkner; Christopher Bentis; Robert J Pomponio; Xiwen Ma; X Kate Zhang; Joan M Keutzer; Petra Oliva
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 4.797

3.  Response to Gelb et al.: "Comparison of tandem mass spectrometry to fluorimetry for newborn screening of LSDs".

Authors:  David S Millington
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab Rep       Date:  2017-07-06

4.  Comparison of tandem mass spectrometry to fluorimetry for newborn screening of LSDs.

Authors:  Michael H Gelb; C Ronald Scott; Frantisek Turecek; Hsuan-Chieh Liao
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab Rep       Date:  2017-06-12

5.  Fluorimetric assay with a novel substrate for quantification of galactocerebrosidase activity in dried blood spot specimens.

Authors:  Anirudh J Ullal; Hong Pham; Rajendra Singh; Peter Ross; Carrie A Graham; Scott M Norton; Miriam H Nuffer; Debbie S Burns; Allen E Eckhardt; Maria Escolar; Deeksha Bali; Vamsee K Pamula
Journal:  Pract Lab Med       Date:  2019-10-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.