4.3 Article

Transient versus Permanent Congenital Hypothyroidism after the Age of 3 Years in Infants Detected on the First versus Second Newborn Screening Test in Oregon, USA

期刊

HORMONE RESEARCH IN PAEDIATRICS
卷 86, 期 3, 页码 169-177

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000448658

关键词

Congenital hypothyroidism; Newborn screening; Transient vs. permanent congenital hypothyroidism; Second routine screening

资金

  1. US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NIH/DHHS) Training Grant in Pediatric Endocrinology [2 T32 HD007497-11]
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [T32HD007497] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: The newborn screening (NBS) program in Oregon, USA, collects two routine specimens in all infants. The aim of our study was to determine the incidence of permanent versus transient congenital hypothyroidism (CH) in infants detected on the first versus second screening test. Methods: Thyroid function was determined in infants after the age of 3 years diagnosed with CH and born in Oregon between 2005 and 2011. Permanent hypothyroidism was defined as a TSH rise > 10 mIU/ml after the first year on treatment or a TSH rise > 6 mIU/ml with temporary discontinuation of l-thyroxine after the age of 3 years. Results: Of the cases detected on the first test, 72 of 87 (83%) were permanent and 15 of 87 (17%) were transient, while of the cases detected on the second test, 5 of 22 (23%) were permanent and 17 of 22 (77%) were transient (OR 16.3, p < 0.001). There was a female preponderance detected on the first screen versus a male preponderance on the second screen. Blood spot and serum thyroid function tests at diagnosis, before treatment, were not meaningfully different between the two groups. The mean l-thyroxine dose at the age of 3 years was greater on the first screen: 61.2 versus 36.6 mu g/day. Conclusions: Infants detected on the second NBS specimen have a higher incidence of transient CH. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.3
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