Literature DB >> 33668470

Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening in Austria Using PAP and the Numeric Product of PAP and IRT Concentrations as Second-Tier Parameters.

Maximilian Zeyda1, Andrea Schanzer1, Pavel Basek2, Vera Bauer3, Ernst Eber4, Helmut Ellemunter5, Margit Kallinger6, Josef Riedler7, Christina Thir8, Franz Wadlegger9, Angela Zacharasiewicz10, Sabine Renner1,11.   

Abstract

In Austria, newborns have been screened for cystic fibrosis (CF) by analyzing immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) from dried blood spots (DBS)s for nearly 20 years. Recently, pancreatitis-associated protein (PAP) analysis was introduced as a second-tier test with the aim of reducing recalls for second DBS cards while keeping sensitivity high. For 28 months, when IRT was elevated (65-130 ng/mL), PAP was measured from the first DBS (n = 198,927) with a two-step cut-off applied. For the last 12 months of the observation period (n = 85,421), an additional IRT×PAP cut-off was introduced. If PAP or IRT×PAP were above cut-off, a second card was analyzed for IRT and in case of elevated values identified as screen-positive. Above 130 ng/mL IRT in the first DBS, newborns were classified as screen-positive. IRT analysis of first DBS resulted in 1961 (1%) tests for PAP. In the first 16 months, 26 of 93 screen-positive were confirmed to have CF. Two false-negatives have been reported (sensitivity = 92.8%). Importantly, less than 30% of families compared to the previous IRT-IRT screening scheme had to be contacted causing distress. Adding IRT×PAP caused a marginally increased number of second cards and sweat tests to be requested during this period (15 and 3, respectively) compared to the initial IRT-PAP scheme. One case of confirmed CF was found due to IRT×PAP, demonstrating an increase in sensitivity. Thus, the relatively simple and economical algorithm presented here performs effectively and may be a useful model for inclusion of CF into NBS panels or modification of existing schemes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IRT-PAP; IRT×PAP; false-positives; neonatal screening; recalls

Year:  2021        PMID: 33668470      PMCID: PMC7918494          DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)        ISSN: 2075-4418


  32 in total

1.  The stability of markers in dried-blood spots for recommended newborn screening disorders in the United States.

Authors:  B W Adam; E M Hall; M Sternberg; T H Lim; S R Flores; S O'Brien; D Simms; L X Li; V R De Jesus; W H Hannon
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.281

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

Authors:  Annette M M Vernooij-van Langen; 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
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 3.  Current status of newborn screening worldwide: 2015.

Authors:  Bradford L Therrell; Carmencita David Padilla; J Gerard Loeber; Issam Kneisser; Amal Saadallah; Gustavo J C Borrajo; John Adams
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.300

4.  Devil in the detail of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Iolo Doull
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 5.  Keep them breathing: Cystic fibrosis pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.

Authors:  Sheena D Brown; Rachel White; Phil Tobin
Journal:  JAAPA       Date:  2017-05

6.  Cystic Fibrosis Screen Positive, Inconclusive Diagnosis (CFSPID): A new designation and management recommendations for infants with an inconclusive diagnosis following newborn screening.

Authors:  A Munck; S J Mayell; V Winters; A Shawcross; N Derichs; R Parad; J Barben; K W Southern
Journal:  J Cyst Fibros       Date:  2015-01-24       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 7.  Potential impact of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis on child survival: a systematic review and analysis.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Margaret Rosenfeld; Owen J Devine; Huichuan J Lai; Philip M Farrell
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 8.  The diagnosis of cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Kris De Boeck; Francois Vermeulen; Lieven Dupont
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 1.228

9.  PAP assays in newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: a population-based cost-effectiveness study.

Authors:  Valerie Seror; Caroline Cao; Michel Roussey; Roch Giorgi
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Cystic fibrosis carrier screening effects on birth prevalence and newborn screening.

Authors:  Carlo Castellani; Luigi Picci; Gloria Tridello; Elia Casati; Anna Tamanini; Lucia Bartoloni; Maurizio Scarpa; Baroukh M Assael
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  1 in total

1.  Impact of Pancreatitis-Associated Protein on Newborn Screening Outcomes and Detection of CFTR-Related Metabolic Syndrome (CRMS)/Cystic Fibrosis Screen Positive, Inconclusive Diagnosis (CFSPID): A Monocentric Prospective Pilot Experience.

Authors:  Chiara Bianchimani; Daniela Dolce; Claudia Centrone; Silvia Campana; Novella Ravenni; Tommaso Orioli; Erica Camera; Gianfranco Mergni; Cristina Fevola; Paolo Bonomi; Giovanni Taccetti; Vito Terlizzi
Journal:  Int J Neonatal Screen       Date:  2022-08-03
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.