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

Context Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) is included in many routine programmes but current strategies have considerable drawbacks, such as false-positive tests, equivocal diagnosis and detection of carriers. Objective To assess the test performance of two newborn screening strategies for CF. Design, setting and participants In 2008 and 2009, CF screening was added to the routine screening programme as a prospective study in part of the Netherlands. Interventions Two strategies were performed in all newborns. In the first strategy, concentrations of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) and pancreatitis-associated protein (PAP) were measured. In the second method, samples with IRT ≥60 μg/litre were analysed for 36 CFTR mutations, followed by sequencing when a single mutation was detected. Tests were positive only with two identified CFTR mutations. Main outcome Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of both screening strategies. Results 145 499 infants were screened. The IRT/PAP approach showed a sensitivity of 95.0%, a specificity of 99.897% and a PPV of 12.3%. Test properties for the IRT/DNA/sequencing strategy were respectively 100%, 100% and 64.9%. Combining both strategies (IRT/PAP/DNA/sequencing) led to a sensitivity of 95.0%, a specificity of 100% and a PPV of 87.5%. Conclusion In conclusion, all strategies performed well. Although there was no statistically significant difference in test performance, the IRT/DNA/sequencing strategy detected one infant that was missed by IRT/PAP (/DNA/sequencing). IRT/PAP may be the optimal choice if the use of DNA technology must be avoided. If identification of carriers and equivocal diagnosis is considered an important disadvantage, IRT/PAP/DNA/sequencing may be the best choice.

[1]  M. Muckenthaler,et al.  Initial evaluation of a biochemical cystic fibrosis newborn screening by sequential analysis of immunoreactive trypsinogen and pancreatitis-associated protein (IRT/PAP) as a strategy that does not involve DNA testing in a Northern European population , 2010, Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease.

[2]  T. Liou,et al.  Carrier screening, incidence of cystic fibrosis, and difficult decisions. , 2009, JAMA.

[3]  F. Accurso,et al.  A new cystic fibrosis newborn screening algorithm: IRT/IRT1 upward arrow/DNA. , 2009, The Journal of pediatrics.

[4]  J. Kai,et al.  Communication of carrier status information following universal newborn screening for sickle cell disorders and cystic fibrosis: qualitative study of experience and practice. , 2009, Health technology assessment.

[5]  R Mann,et al.  Methods to identify postnatal depression in primary care: an integrated evidence synthesis and value of information analysis. , 2009, Health technology assessment.

[6]  E. Génin,et al.  The very low penetrance of cystic fibrosis for the R117H mutation: a reappraisal for genetic counselling and newborn screening , 2009, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[7]  O. Sommerburg,et al.  European best practice guidelines for cystic fibrosis neonatal screening. , 2009, Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society.

[8]  P. Farrell,et al.  Clarification of Laboratory and Clinical Variables That Influence Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening With Initial Analysis of Immunoreactive Trypsinogen , 2009, Pediatrics.

[9]  J. Dankert-Roelse,et al.  Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  A. Munck,et al.  Implementation of the French nationwide cystic fibrosis newborn screening program. , 2008, The Journal of pediatrics.

[11]  L. Kann,et al.  Youth risk behavior surveillance--United States, 2007. , 2008, Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries.

[12]  B. Wilcken.  Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Techniques and strategies , 2007, Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease.

[13]  A. Clark,et al.  Cystic Fibrosis Diagnosed After 2 Months of Age Leads to Worse Outcomes and Requires More Therapy , 2007, Pediatrics.

[14]  A. Green,et al.  Guidelines for the performance of the sweat test for the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis , 2007, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[15]  H. Scheffer,et al.  Extended gene analysis can increase specificity of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis , 2006, Acta paediatrica.

[16]  C. Férec,et al.  Immunoreactive Trypsin/DNA Newborn Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Should the R117H Variant Be Included in CFTR Mutation Panels? , 2006, Pediatrics.

[17]  L. Curnow,et al.  Parental attitudes to the identification of their infants as carriers of cystic fibrosis by newborn screening , 2006, Journal of paediatrics and child health.

[18]  K De Boeck,et al.  Cystic fibrosis: terminology and diagnostic algorithms , 2005, Thorax.

[19]  P. Rowley,et al.  Cystic fibrosis newborn screening: a pilot study to maximize carrier screening. , 2005, Genetic testing.

[20]  C. Uiterwaal,et al.  Birth prevalence and survival in cystic fibrosis: a national cohort study in the Netherlands. , 2005, Chest.

[21]  J. Sarles,et al.  Combining immunoreactive trypsinogen and pancreatitis-associated protein assays, a method of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis that avoids DNA analysis. , 2005, The Journal of pediatrics.

[22]  C. Castellani,et al.  Cystic fibrosis carriers have higher neonatal immunoreactive trypsinogen values than non‐carriers , 2005, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[23]  R. Parad,et al.  Population-based newborn screening for genetic disorders when multiple mutation DNA testing is incorporated: a cystic fibrosis newborn screening model demonstrating increased sensitivity but more carrier detections. , 2004, Pediatrics.

[24]  R. Parad,et al.  Genetic counseling after implementation of statewide cystic fibrosis newborn screening: Two years' experience in one medical center , 2001, Genetics in Medicine.

[25]  C. Robertson,et al.  Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in Victoria: 10 years' experience (1989‐1998) , 2000, The Medical journal of Australia.

[26]  K. Kochanek,et al.  Recommended framework for presenting injury mortality data. , 1997, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[27]  H. Scheffer,et al.  Prevalence of ΔF508 cystic fibrosis carriers in The Netherlands: logistic regression on sex, age, region of residence and number of offspring , 1996, Human Genetics.

[28]  L. Kate.  Cystic fibrosis in the Netherlands , 1977 .

[29]  A Munck,et al.  A European consensus for the evaluation and management of infants with an equivocal diagnosis following newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. , 2009, Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society.

[30]  S. Raman,et al.  Newborn Screening Showing Decreasing Incidence of Cystic Fibrosis , 2008 .

[31]  C. Férec,et al.  Time trends in birth incidence of cystic fibrosis in two European areas: data from newborn screening programs. , 2008, The Journal of pediatrics.

[32]  C. Castellani,et al.  A survey of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in Europe. , 2007, Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society.

[33]  Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis , 2004 .

[34]  M. Kosorok,et al.  Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: a paradigm for public health genetics policy development. Proceedings of a 1997 workshop. , 1997, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[35]  L. T. ten Kate.  Cystic fibrosis in the Netherlands. , 1977, International journal of epidemiology.