Carolina Godoy, Pedro Paulo Brito, Tatiana Amorim, Edna Lúcia Souza, Ney Boa-Sorte
{"title":"作为新生儿囊性纤维化筛查方法的 IRT/IRT:混合人群的最佳临界点。","authors":"Carolina Godoy, Pedro Paulo Brito, Tatiana Amorim, Edna Lúcia Souza, Ney Boa-Sorte","doi":"10.1590/0102-311XEN150623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) has incorporated newborn screening for cystic fibrosis since 2001. The protocol involves two samples of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT1/IRT2). This study aims to analyze fixed and floating values at the first and second IRT (IRT1/IRT2) cutoff points and assess the accuracy of the IRT/IRT methodology in a population from Northeastern Brazil. Descriptive, individual-level data from the newborn screening reference service data system (2013-2017) were used in this observational population study. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPV) for the protocol were calculated. The best cutoff point was determined using the Youden's index. The previous year's cut-off values for the IRT1 and IRT2 99.4-, 99.5-, 99.6-, and 99.7-percentiles were utilized for the floating cutoff. During the studied period, 840,832 newborns underwent screening for cystic fibrosis, obtaining 49 cystic fibrosis diagnoses: 39 by newborn screening (79.6%) and 10 (20.4%) by clinical suspicion (false negative). The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the protocol totaled 79.6%, 99.9%, and 6.1%, respectively. No proposed cutoff for IRT1 performed better than the current one. IRT2 performed similarly to the current protocol at a cutoff point of 90ng/mL, showing the appropriate sensitivity and specificity while reducing the frequency of false positives. The protocol to screen newborns for cystic fibrosis had low sensitivity, a predictive positive value, and a high number of false positives and negatives. A floating cut point for IRT1 or IRT2 seems to constitute no viable option. However, changing the IRT2 cut point from 70ng/mL to 90ng/mL seems to have advantages and should undergo consideration.</p>","PeriodicalId":9398,"journal":{"name":"Cadernos de saude publica","volume":"40 7","pages":"e00150623"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11349280/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IRT/IRT as a newborn cystic fibrosis screening method: optimal cutoff points for a mixed population.\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Godoy, Pedro Paulo Brito, Tatiana Amorim, Edna Lúcia Souza, Ney Boa-Sorte\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/0102-311XEN150623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) has incorporated newborn screening for cystic fibrosis since 2001. The protocol involves two samples of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT1/IRT2). This study aims to analyze fixed and floating values at the first and second IRT (IRT1/IRT2) cutoff points and assess the accuracy of the IRT/IRT methodology in a population from Northeastern Brazil. Descriptive, individual-level data from the newborn screening reference service data system (2013-2017) were used in this observational population study. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPV) for the protocol were calculated. The best cutoff point was determined using the Youden's index. The previous year's cut-off values for the IRT1 and IRT2 99.4-, 99.5-, 99.6-, and 99.7-percentiles were utilized for the floating cutoff. During the studied period, 840,832 newborns underwent screening for cystic fibrosis, obtaining 49 cystic fibrosis diagnoses: 39 by newborn screening (79.6%) and 10 (20.4%) by clinical suspicion (false negative). The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the protocol totaled 79.6%, 99.9%, and 6.1%, respectively. No proposed cutoff for IRT1 performed better than the current one. IRT2 performed similarly to the current protocol at a cutoff point of 90ng/mL, showing the appropriate sensitivity and specificity while reducing the frequency of false positives. The protocol to screen newborns for cystic fibrosis had low sensitivity, a predictive positive value, and a high number of false positives and negatives. A floating cut point for IRT1 or IRT2 seems to constitute no viable option. However, changing the IRT2 cut point from 70ng/mL to 90ng/mL seems to have advantages and should undergo consideration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cadernos de saude publica\",\"volume\":\"40 7\",\"pages\":\"e00150623\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11349280/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cadernos de saude publica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XEN150623\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cadernos de saude publica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XEN150623","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
IRT/IRT as a newborn cystic fibrosis screening method: optimal cutoff points for a mixed population.
The Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) has incorporated newborn screening for cystic fibrosis since 2001. The protocol involves two samples of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT1/IRT2). This study aims to analyze fixed and floating values at the first and second IRT (IRT1/IRT2) cutoff points and assess the accuracy of the IRT/IRT methodology in a population from Northeastern Brazil. Descriptive, individual-level data from the newborn screening reference service data system (2013-2017) were used in this observational population study. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPV) for the protocol were calculated. The best cutoff point was determined using the Youden's index. The previous year's cut-off values for the IRT1 and IRT2 99.4-, 99.5-, 99.6-, and 99.7-percentiles were utilized for the floating cutoff. During the studied period, 840,832 newborns underwent screening for cystic fibrosis, obtaining 49 cystic fibrosis diagnoses: 39 by newborn screening (79.6%) and 10 (20.4%) by clinical suspicion (false negative). The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the protocol totaled 79.6%, 99.9%, and 6.1%, respectively. No proposed cutoff for IRT1 performed better than the current one. IRT2 performed similarly to the current protocol at a cutoff point of 90ng/mL, showing the appropriate sensitivity and specificity while reducing the frequency of false positives. The protocol to screen newborns for cystic fibrosis had low sensitivity, a predictive positive value, and a high number of false positives and negatives. A floating cut point for IRT1 or IRT2 seems to constitute no viable option. However, changing the IRT2 cut point from 70ng/mL to 90ng/mL seems to have advantages and should undergo consideration.
期刊介绍:
Cadernos de Saúde Pública/Reports in Public Health (CSP) is a monthly journal published by the Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (ENSP/FIOCRUZ).
The journal is devoted to the publication of scientific articles focusing on the production of knowledge in Public Health. CSP also aims to foster critical reflection and debate on current themes related to public policies and factors that impact populations'' living conditions and health care.
All articles submitted to CSP are judiciously evaluated by the Editorial Board, composed of the Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors, respecting the diversity of approaches, objects, and methods of the different disciplines characterizing the field of Public Health. Originality, relevance, and methodological rigor are the principal characteristics considered in the editorial evaluation. The article evaluation system practiced by CSP consists of two stages.