Comparison between Gibson-Cooke and Macroduct Methods in the Cystic Fibrosis Neonatal Screening Program and in Subjects Who Are Cystic Fibrosis Screen-Positive with an Inconclusive Diagnosis.

IF 4 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY International Journal of Neonatal Screening Pub Date : 2023-07-25 DOI:10.3390/ijns9030041
Daniela Dolce, Cristina Fevola, Erica Camera, Tommaso Orioli, Ersilia Lucenteforte, Marco Andrea Malanima, Giovanni Taccetti, Vito Terlizzi
{"title":"Comparison between Gibson-Cooke and Macroduct Methods in the Cystic Fibrosis Neonatal Screening Program and in Subjects Who Are Cystic Fibrosis Screen-Positive with an Inconclusive Diagnosis.","authors":"Daniela Dolce,&nbsp;Cristina Fevola,&nbsp;Erica Camera,&nbsp;Tommaso Orioli,&nbsp;Ersilia Lucenteforte,&nbsp;Marco Andrea Malanima,&nbsp;Giovanni Taccetti,&nbsp;Vito Terlizzi","doi":"10.3390/ijns9030041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The sweat test (ST) is the current diagnostic gold standard for cystic fibrosis (CF). Many CF centres have switched from the Gibson-Cooke method to the Macroduct system-based method. We used these methods simultaneously to compare CF screening outcomes. STs using both methods were performed simultaneously between March and December 2022 at CF Centre in Florence. We included newborns who underwent newborn bloodspot screening (NBS), newborns undergoing transfusion immediately after birth, and children with CF screen-positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID). We assessed 72 subjects (median age 4.4 months; range 0-76.7): 30 (41.7%) NBS-positive, 18 (25.0%) newborns who underwent transfusion, and 24 (33.3%) children with CFSPID. No significant differences were found between valid sample numbers, by patient ages and groups (<i>p</i> = 0.10) and between chloride concentrations (<i>p</i> = 0.13), except for sweat chloride (SC) measured by the Gibson-Cooke and Macroduct methods in CFSPID group (29.0, IQR: 20.0-48.0 and 22.5, IQR: 15.5-30.8, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.01). The Macroduct and Gibson-Cooke methods showed substantial agreement with the SC values, except for CFSPID, whose result may depend on the method of sweat collection. In case of invalid values with Macroduct, the test should be repeated with Gibson-Cooke method.</p>","PeriodicalId":14159,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Neonatal Screening","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10443242/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Neonatal Screening","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijns9030041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The sweat test (ST) is the current diagnostic gold standard for cystic fibrosis (CF). Many CF centres have switched from the Gibson-Cooke method to the Macroduct system-based method. We used these methods simultaneously to compare CF screening outcomes. STs using both methods were performed simultaneously between March and December 2022 at CF Centre in Florence. We included newborns who underwent newborn bloodspot screening (NBS), newborns undergoing transfusion immediately after birth, and children with CF screen-positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID). We assessed 72 subjects (median age 4.4 months; range 0-76.7): 30 (41.7%) NBS-positive, 18 (25.0%) newborns who underwent transfusion, and 24 (33.3%) children with CFSPID. No significant differences were found between valid sample numbers, by patient ages and groups (p = 0.10) and between chloride concentrations (p = 0.13), except for sweat chloride (SC) measured by the Gibson-Cooke and Macroduct methods in CFSPID group (29.0, IQR: 20.0-48.0 and 22.5, IQR: 15.5-30.8, respectively; p = 0.01). The Macroduct and Gibson-Cooke methods showed substantial agreement with the SC values, except for CFSPID, whose result may depend on the method of sweat collection. In case of invalid values with Macroduct, the test should be repeated with Gibson-Cooke method.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gibson-Cooke和macro导管方法在新生儿囊性纤维化筛查项目和囊性纤维化筛查阳性但诊断不明确的受试者中的比较
汗液试验(ST)是目前诊断囊性纤维化(CF)的金标准。许多CF中心已经从Gibson-Cooke方法切换到基于Macroduct系统的方法。我们同时使用这些方法来比较CF筛查结果。2022年3月至12月期间,在佛罗伦萨CF中心同时进行了两种方法的STs。我们纳入了接受新生儿血斑筛查(NBS)的新生儿,出生后立即输血的新生儿,以及CF筛查阳性但诊断不明确的儿童(CFSPID)。我们评估了72名受试者(中位年龄4.4个月;范围0-76.7):30例(41.7%)nbs阳性,18例(25.0%)接受输血的新生儿,24例(33.3%)CFSPID患儿。除CFSPID组中Gibson-Cooke法和Macroduct法测定的汗液氯化物(SC)(分别为29.0,IQR: 20.0-48.0和22.5,IQR: 15.5-30.8)外,有效样本数、患者年龄和组之间无显著差异(p = 0.10),氯化物浓度之间无显著差异(p = 0.13);P = 0.01)。除CFSPID外,macroproduct和Gibson-Cooke方法与SC值基本一致,CFSPID的结果可能取决于汗液收集方法。如果Macroduct的值无效,则应使用Gibson-Cooke法重复测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Neonatal Screening
International Journal of Neonatal Screening Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Training and Evaluation of the "Dual-Index" Screening Method for Neonatal Congenital Heart Disease: A Multi-Center Study in China. Outcomes of a Pilot Newborn Screening Program for Spinal Muscular Atrophy in the Valencian Community. Advancing Newborn Screening in Washington State: A Novel Multiplexed LC-MS/MS Proteomic Assay for Wilson Disease and Inborn Errors of Immunity. Maternity Care Providers' Experiences with Providing Information on Newborn Bloodspot Screening During Pregnancy: A Dutch Survey Study. Development, Validation, and Application of the Paya Hamsan Technologies Underivatized Newborn Screening Assay (PHUNSA) for Inborn Metabolic Disorders in Dried Blood Spot Samples from Iranian Infants.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1