4.6 Article

Differences in Outcomes between Early and Late Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis in the Newborn Screening Era

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 181, Issue -, Pages 137-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.10.045

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To evaluate children with cystic fibrosis (CF) who had a late diagnosis of CF (LD-CF) despite newborn screening (NBS) and compare their clinical outcomes with children diagnosed after a positive NBS (NBS-CF). Study design A retrospective review of patients with LD-CF in New South Wales, Australia, from 1988 to 2010 was performed. LD-CF was defined as NBS-negative (negative immunoreactive trypsinogen or no F508del) or NBS-positive but discharged following sweat chloride < 60 mmol/L. Cases of LD-CF were each matched 1:2 with patients with NBS-CF for age, sex, hospital, and exocrine pancreatic status. Results A total of 45 LD-CF cases were identified (39 NBS-negative and 6 NBS-positive) with 90 NBS-CF matched controls. Median age (IQR) of diagnosis for LD-CF and NBS-CF was 1.35 (0.4-2.8) and 0.12 (0.03-0.2) years, respectively (P < .0001). Estimated incidence of LD-CF was 1 in 45 000 live births. Compared with NBS-CF, LD-CF had more respiratory manifestations at time of diagnosis (66% vs 4%; P < .0001), a higher rate of hospital admission per year for respiratory illness (0.49 vs 0.2; P = .0004), worse lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage of predicted, 0.88 vs 0.97; P = .007), and higher rates of chronic colonization with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (47% vs 24%; P = .01). The LD-CF cohort also appeared to be shorter than NBS-CF controls (mean height z-score -0.65 vs -0.03; P = .02). Conclusions LD-CF, despite NBS, seems to be associated with worse health before diagnosis and worse later growth and respiratory outcomes, thus providing further support for NBS programs for CF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available