Evaluating a Novel Newborn Screening Methodology: Combined Genetic and Biochemical Screenings

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Archives of Medical Research Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.arcmed.2024.102959
Bin Yu , Yuqi Yang , Lingna Zhou , Qiuwei Wang
{"title":"Evaluating a Novel Newborn Screening Methodology: Combined Genetic and Biochemical Screenings","authors":"Bin Yu ,&nbsp;Yuqi Yang ,&nbsp;Lingna Zhou ,&nbsp;Qiuwei Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.arcmed.2024.102959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Analysis of four newborn screening<span><span> modes using newborn </span>genomic sequencing (nGS) and traditional biochemical screening (TBS).</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Prospective clinical study with a total of 1,012 newborn samples from retrospective TBS. Three independent groups performed the study under strict double-blind conditions according to the screening modes: independent biochemical (IBS), independent NeoSeq (INS), sequential (SS), and combined (CS) screening. Using targeted sequencing, the NeoSeq panel included 154 pathogenic genes covering 86 diseases.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 1,012 newborns, 120 were diagnosed were diagnosed with genetic diseases Among them, 52 cases were within the scope of TBS and 68 additional cases were identified through nGS. The number of cases detected per screening mode was 50, 113, 56, and 119 for IBS, INS, SS, and CS, respectively. CS was the most satisfactory screening mode, with the detection rate of 99.17%, the specificity and positive predictive value of 100%, and the negative predictive value of 99.89%. In addition, of the 68 cases identified by nGS (96 variants in 31 pathogenic genes), only four participants (5.9%) had clinical manifestations consistent with the disease. The experimental reporting cycles of CS and INS were the shortest.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CS was the most satisfactory method for newborn screening, which combined nGS with TBS to improve early diagnosis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8318,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Medical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440924000122","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Analysis of four newborn screening modes using newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) and traditional biochemical screening (TBS).

Methods

Prospective clinical study with a total of 1,012 newborn samples from retrospective TBS. Three independent groups performed the study under strict double-blind conditions according to the screening modes: independent biochemical (IBS), independent NeoSeq (INS), sequential (SS), and combined (CS) screening. Using targeted sequencing, the NeoSeq panel included 154 pathogenic genes covering 86 diseases.

Results

Of the 1,012 newborns, 120 were diagnosed were diagnosed with genetic diseases Among them, 52 cases were within the scope of TBS and 68 additional cases were identified through nGS. The number of cases detected per screening mode was 50, 113, 56, and 119 for IBS, INS, SS, and CS, respectively. CS was the most satisfactory screening mode, with the detection rate of 99.17%, the specificity and positive predictive value of 100%, and the negative predictive value of 99.89%. In addition, of the 68 cases identified by nGS (96 variants in 31 pathogenic genes), only four participants (5.9%) had clinical manifestations consistent with the disease. The experimental reporting cycles of CS and INS were the shortest.

Conclusions

CS was the most satisfactory method for newborn screening, which combined nGS with TBS to improve early diagnosis.

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
评估一种新的新生儿筛查方法:基因和生化联合筛查
目的 分析使用新生儿基因组测序(nGS)和传统生化筛查(TBS)的四种新生儿筛查模式。方法 使用回顾性 TBS 共 1012 份新生儿样本进行前瞻性临床研究。三个独立小组在严格的双盲条件下按照筛查模式进行了研究:独立生化筛查(IBS)、独立 NeoSeq 筛查(INS)、顺序筛查(SS)和联合筛查(CS)。结果 在 1,012 名新生儿中,有 120 名被确诊为遗传病,其中 52 例属于 TBS 筛查范围,另有 68 例通过 nGS 筛查发现。 IBS、INS、SS 和 CS 每种筛查模式发现的病例数分别为 50、113、56 和 119 例。CS 是最令人满意的筛查模式,检出率为 99.17%,特异性和阳性预测值均为 100%,阴性预测值为 99.89%。此外,在通过 nGS 发现的 68 个病例(31 个致病基因中的 96 个变异)中,只有 4 名参与者(5.9%)有符合该疾病的临床表现。结论CCS是最令人满意的新生儿筛查方法,它将nGS与TBS相结合,提高了早期诊断率。
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
Archives of Medical Research
Archives of Medical Research 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
84
审稿时长
28 days
期刊介绍: Archives of Medical Research serves as a platform for publishing original peer-reviewed medical research, aiming to bridge gaps created by medical specialization. The journal covers three main categories - biomedical, clinical, and epidemiological contributions, along with review articles and preliminary communications. With an international scope, it presents the study of diseases from diverse perspectives, offering the medical community original investigations ranging from molecular biology to clinical epidemiology in a single publication.
期刊最新文献
Preliminary efficacy and safety analysis of tafamidis in post-liver transplant patients with hereditary transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis Convergences and Divergences in the Burden of Disease in Older People Across The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Countries How Latin American health care systems will respond to the next crises? Lessons and challenges after the COVID-19 pandemic Impact on Fatality Rates and Years of Life Lost During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Experience of the Mexican Public Health Incident Management Command Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures in Mexico: A Call to Action
×
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