4.4 Article

Utility of a very high IRT/No mutation referral category in cystic fibrosis newborn screening

期刊

PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY
卷 50, 期 8, 页码 771-780

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.23222

关键词

high IRT; immunoreactive trypsinogen; CFTR mutation; positive predictive value (PPV)

资金

  1. Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Newborn screening for Cystic Fibrosis (CF) began in New York in October, 2002 using immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT)/DNA methodology. Infants with at least one CFTR mutation or very high IRT and no mutations (VHIRT) are referred for sweat testing. In a preliminary analysis, we noted a very low positive predictive value (PPV) and preponderance of Hispanic infants in the group of infants with CF referred for VHIRT, which led to a decision to revise, but not eliminate, the VHIRT category. Automatic referral for specimens with VHIRT collected on the day of birth was eliminated, and the VHIRT threshold was raised from 0.2% to 0.1%. In this report, we describe outcomes from VHIRT referrals among 2.4 million infants screened between March 2003 and February 2013. Following the algorithm change, referrals decreased by 37.8% overall (annual mean 1,485 vs. 923), and the VHIRT PPV improved (0.6-1.0%). The number of infants diagnosed has remained consistent at 1 in 4,400 births. The proportion of Black/Hispanic/Asian/Other infants with confirmed CF, CFTR-related metabolic syndrome (CRMS), or possible CF/CRMS was 21.3% in infants with 1-2 mutations, but 75.8% in the VHIRT group. In conclusion, although the PPV among VHIRT referrals remains low, had this category never been implemented, 24 infants with confirmed CF, and 9 infants with CRMS or possible CF/CRMS, most of whom were Hispanic, would have been missed over the 10 years. Information from this study may be helpful in assessing the need for the VHIRT category and algorithm changes in other screening programs. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2015; 50:771-780. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据