» Articles » PMID: 27131402

Improving the Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value in a Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening Program Using a Repeat Immunoreactive Trypsinogen and Genetic Analysis

Overview
Journal J Pediatr
Specialty Pediatrics
Date 2016 May 2
PMID 27131402
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the performance of a new cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening algorithm, comprised of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) in first (24-48 hours of life) and second (7-14 days of life) dried blood spot plus DNA on second dried blood spot, over existing algorithms.

Study Design: A retrospective review of the IRT/IRT/DNA algorithm implemented in Colorado, Wyoming, and Texas.

Results: A total of 1 520 079 newborns were screened, 32 557 (2.1%) had abnormal first IRT; 8794 (0.54%) on second. Furthermore, 14 653 mutation analyses were performed; 1391 newborns were referred for diagnostic testing; 274 newborns were diagnosed; and 201/274 (73%) of newborns had 2 mutations on the newborn screening CFTR panel. Sensitivity was 96.2%, compared with sensitivity of 76.1% observed with IRT/IRT (105 ng/mL cut-offs, P < .0001). The ratio of newborns with CF to heterozygote carriers was 1:2.5, and newborns with CF to newborns with CFTR-related metabolic syndrome was 10.8:1. The overall positive predictive value was 20%. The median age of diagnosis was 28, 30, and 39.5 days in the 3 states.

Conclusions: IRT/IRT/DNA is more sensitive than IRT/IRT because of lower cut-offs (∼97 percentile or 60 ng/mL); higher cut-offs in IRT/IRT programs (>99 percentile, 105 ng/mL) would not achieve sufficient sensitivity. Carrier identification and identification of newborns with CFTR-related metabolic syndrome is less common in IRT/IRT/DNA compared with IRT/DNA. The time to diagnosis is nominally longer, but diagnosis can be achieved in the neonatal period and opportunities to further improve timeliness have been enacted. IRT/IRT/DNA algorithm should be considered by programs with 2 routine screens.

Citing Articles

Cystic Fibrosis Screening Efficacy and Seasonal Variation in California: 15-Year Comparison of IRT Cutoffs Versus Daily Percentile for First-Tier Testing.

Sciortino S, Graham S, Bishop T, Matteson J, Carter S, Wu C Int J Neonatal Screen. 2024; 10(4).

PMID: 39584999 PMC: 11627160. DOI: 10.3390/ijns10040076.


Newborn Screening Program for Cystic Fibrosis in Türkiye: Experiences from False-Negative Tests and Requirement for Optimization.

Coksuer F, Kartal Ozturk G, Duman Senol H, Barlik M, Ozaslan M, Girgin Dindar B Balkan Med J. 2024; 42(1):45-53.

PMID: 39574132 PMC: 11725669. DOI: 10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2024.2024-7-144.


IRT/IRT as a newborn cystic fibrosis screening method: optimal cutoff points for a mixed population.

Godoy C, Brito P, Amorim T, Souza E, Boa-Sorte N Cad Saude Publica. 2024; 40(7):e00150623.

PMID: 39194088 PMC: 11349280. DOI: 10.1590/0102-311XEN150623.


Influence of Season, Storage Temperature and Time of Sample Collection in Pancreatitis-Associated Protein-Based Algorithms for Newborn Screening for Cystic Fibrosis.

Maier P, Jeyaweerasinkam S, Eberhard J, Soueidan L, Hammerling S, Kohlmuller D Int J Neonatal Screen. 2024; 10(1).

PMID: 38248633 PMC: 10801509. DOI: 10.3390/ijns10010005.


Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis in Hungary-First-Year Experiences.

Xue A, Lenart I, Kincs J, Szabo H, Parniczky A, Balogh I Int J Neonatal Screen. 2023; 9(3).

PMID: 37754773 PMC: 10531581. DOI: 10.3390/ijns9030047.