Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Controlled Clinical Trial
. 2012 Apr;67(4):289-95.
doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200730. Epub 2012 Jan 23.

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

Collaborators, Affiliations
Controlled Clinical Trial

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

Annette M M Vernooij-van Langen et al. Thorax. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types