4.7 Review

SCID newborn screening: What we've learned

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 147, 期 2, 页码 417-426

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.020

关键词

Primary immunodeficiency; T-cell receptor excision circle (TREC); severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID); lymphopenia; dried blood spot; newborn screening

资金

  1. Primary Immune Deficiency Treatment Consortium [U54-AI082973]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [U54-AI082973]
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland [U54-AI082973]
  4. Jeffrey Modell Foundation
  5. Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund
  6. Michelle Platt-Ross Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency, the first immune disorder accepted for population-based screening, has proven to be an effective measure in improving outcomes by helping patients avoid devastating infections and receive prompt treatment. The T-cell receptor excision circle test has been widely adopted in the United States, providing important lessons for public health programs and medical professionals.
Newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency, the most profound form of primary immune system defects, has long been recognized as a measure that would decrease morbidity and improve outcomes by helping patients avoid devastating infections and receive prompt immune-restoring therapy. The T-cell receptor excision circle test, developed in 2005, proved to be successful in pilot studies starting in the period 2008 to 2010, and by 2019 all states in the United States had adopted versions of it in their public health programs. Introduction of newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency, the first immune disorder accepted for population-based screening, has drastically changed the presentation of this disorder while providing important lessons for public health programs, immunologists, and transplanters.

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

4.7
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