| Literature DB >> 35406673 |
Katharina Hohenfellner1, Ewa Elenberg2, Gema Ariceta3, Galina Nesterova4, Neveen A Soliman5, Rezan Topaloglu6.
Abstract
Newborn screening (NBS) programmes are considered to be one of the most successful secondary prevention measures in childhood to prevent or reduce morbidity and/or mortality via early disease identification and subsequent initiation of therapy. However, while many rare diseases can now be detected at an early stage using appropriate diagnostics, the introduction of a new target disease requires a detailed analysis of the entire screening process, including a robust scientific background, analytics, information technology, and logistics. In addition, ethics, financing, and the required medical measures need to be considered to allow the benefits of screening to be evaluated at a higher level than its potential harm. Infantile nephropathic cystinosis (INC) is a very rare lysosomal metabolic disorder. With the introduction of cysteamine therapy in the early 1980s and the possibility of renal replacement therapy in infancy, patients with cystinosis can now reach adulthood. Early diagnosis of cystinosis remains important as this enables initiation of cysteamine at the earliest opportunity to support renal and patient survival. Using molecular technologies, the feasibility of screening for cystinosis has been demonstrated in a pilot project. This review aims to provide insight into NBS and discuss its importance for nephropathic cystinosis using molecular technologies.Entities:
Keywords: CTNS-pathogenic variants; clinical course; infantile nephropathic cystinosis; newborn screening; newborn screening for cystinosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35406673 PMCID: PMC8997957 DOI: 10.3390/cells11071109
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Principles of screening by Wilson and Jungner (1968).
| 1. | The condition sought should be an important health problem. |
| 2. | There should be an accepted treatment for patients with recognized disease. |
| 3. | Facilities for diagnosis and treatment should be available. |
| 4. | There should be a recognizable latent or early symptomatic stage. |
| 5. | There should be a suitable test or examination. |
| 6. | The test should be acceptable to the population. |
| 7. | The natural history of the condition, including development from latent to declared disease, should be adequately understood. |
| 8. | There should be an agreed policy on whom to treat as patients. |
| 9. | The cost of case finding (including diagnosis and treatment of patients diagnosed) should be economically balanced in relation to possible expenditure on medical care as a whole. |
| 10. | Case finding should be a continuing process and not a “once and for all” project. |
Figure 1Test results and quality parameters in neonatal screening. Sensitivity: Ability of the test to accurately identify those individuals with a specific condition/disease. Specificity: Ability of the test to accurately identify those individuals without the condition/disease. Positive predictive value (PPV): Probability that the person tested has the disease when the test is positive. Negative predictive value: Probability that the person does not have the disease, when the test is negative.
Impact of early initiation of oral cysteamine.
| First Author, Year | Study | Impact of Early Initiation of | Impact of Early Initiation of Cysteamine on Extra-Renal Manifestations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kleta, 2004 [ | Family case report of two siblings (children) | A non-symptomatic child, identified after an affected brother who initiated cysteamine at 2 months of age, achieved and maintained normal renal function at 8 years of age. Patient’s brother had CKD stage II at similar age despite treatment with cysteamine from 2 years of age | NR |
| Broyer, 2008 [ | Necker Enfants-Malades Hospital series; patients born before 1988; aged 20–39 years (n = 56) | Initiation < 3 years of age vs. later delayed ESRD onset (mean age at onset 17.4 vs. 9.6 years) | Initiation < 3 years of age vs. later: |
| Greco, 2010 [ | Italian single-centre study; patients diagnosed at 3–60 years of age; median follow-up 17.6 years (n = 23) | Initiation < 2.5 years of age vs. later improved evolution of renal function ( | Patients treated more recently (initiated < 2.5 years of age) had improved linear growth curves vs. older children |
| Vaisbich, 2010 [ | Brazilian multicentre nephropathic study; patients aged 1.3–29 years enrolled since 1999 (n = 102) | Initiation < 2 years of age vs. later reduced rate of CKD stage II–V (25% vs. 77.5%) | Initiation < 2 years of age vs. later: |
| Brodin-Sartorius, 2012 [ | French study; adults (aged ≥15 years) diagnosed between 1961 and 1995 (n = 86) | Initiation < 5 years of age vs. later delayed ESRD onset (mean age at onset 13.4 vs. 9.6 years; | Initiation < 5 years of age (vs. later or no treatment): |
| Viltz, 2013 [ | Children and adolescents (aged 3–18 years) [n = 46] | NR | Initiation < 2 years of age vs. later: |
| Bertholet-Thomas, 2017 [ | Multinational study in children and adolescents from 41 centres and 30 nations (n = 213) | Earlier cysteamine treatment resulted in better renal outcome. Median renal survival increased up to 16.1 (12.5-/) years in patients treated at <2.5 years of age ( | NR |
| Topaloglu, 2017 [ | Multicentral study in children and adolescent from 26 centres [n = 136] | Patients in whom cysteamine treatment was initiated at age < 2 years old had delayed progression to renal failure compared to the patients in whom cysteamine treatment was initiated > 2 years ( | NR |
| Emma, 2021 [ | Large international cohort of patients followed along five decades (n = 453) | A nearly linear relationship between the age at cysteamine initiation and renal survival was observed. Patients who started cysteamine aged < 1 year had delayed progression to renal failure in comparison with those who started aged 1–2 years old, and those who started cysteamine after 2 years of age (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.9, 1.42; | Initiation of cysteamine before the age of 1.5 years had a positive effect on growth with a gain of 0.57 SDSs in comparison with those who started cysteamine later. |
CI, confidence interval; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CNS, central nervous system; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; HR, hazard ratio; NR, not referred; SDS, standard deviation score.