The Journal of Pediatrics
Volume 153, Issue 3 , Pages 308-313, September 2008

Newborn Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: A Lesson in Public Health Disparities

  • Lainie Friedman Ross, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Lainie Friedman Ross, MD, PhD, University of Chicago, Department of Pediatrics, 5841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 6082, Chicago IL 60637

Department of Pediatrics and the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Received 21 November 2007; received in revised form 31 March 2008; accepted 24 April 2008.

Article Outline

Abbreviations: CF, Cystic fibrosis, IRT, Immunoreactive trypsinogen, NBS, Newborn screening, PAP, Pancreatic associate protein

 

In the US, Newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) has rapidly expanded since the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders and Genetic Diseases in Newborns and Children1 voted to recommend to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the uniform NBS panel proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG)/Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) committee.2 The decision to include CF as one of the 29 core conditions in the uniform panel was strengthened by data presented at a CDC workshop in 2003.3 Whereas 11 states offered screening in 2002,4 by January 2008, 34 states offer screening and another 7 require testing but have not yet implemented it.5 In Europe, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic have newborn programs for CF either regionally or nationally,6 as do Australia and New Zealand.7 The introduction of NBS for CF has been mired in debate focused on whether screening provides adequate clinical benefit3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and whether these benefits outweigh the clinical and psychosocial risks of screening.4, 12, 13, 14 There has been less debate about how screening should take place,15, 16, 17, 18 particularly about how the different methods have different impact on different racial and ethnic communities.19 This is of utmost importance because NBS is a universal screening program that is mandated in most US states. Unless the differential impact of the different CF screening methods on members of different racial and ethnic communities is considered, health care disparities may become entrenched, albeit unconsciously, into public health programs.

Back to Article Outline

Methods for Newborn Screening for CF 

In the United States, 3 different methods are used to screen for CF in newborns. In all programs, the first stage of screening entails measurement of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) on dried blood spots.20 An elevated IRT level indicates an increased risk of CF. In some states, the second stage involves a repeat IRT. If the repeat is elevated, the child is referred for a sweat test. In other states, the second stage involves a DNA test for CF mutations on the original blood spot.21 More than 1000 CF mutations have been discovered,22 and the genetic test may include as few as 1 mutation (delta F508) or several dozen.4 Because many mutations are not included, children are referred for sweat tests if only 1 mutation is found or if the IRT is so high as to be suspicious. Some states do 3 stages, including 2 IRT tests plus DNA analysis to minimize the number of children who need to undergo sweat testing. In Europe, 19 of the 26 programs incorporated DNA analysis, but at least 1 program only does 1 IRT and goes immediately to sweat test, and another program includes 2 IRT tests, DNA analysis, and the measurement of meconium proteins.6 Australia and New Zealand use an IRT/DNA approach with regional variability in the number of mutations included.7

When deciding between these methods, one must be cognizant that screening may lead to delayed diagnoses of those with a false-negative result because many physicians are reassured by a negative screening test even though it is not meant to be diagnostic.13, 23, 24 The impact of false-negative results, then, may differ between racial and ethnic communities. CF is the most common genetic condition in non-Hispanic Caucasians, with a frequency of approximately 1 in 3300.25 The rate is similar in Ashkenazi Jews, although the mutations that account for the disease are different.26 However, the frequency is much lower in other ethnic communities including Hispanics (1 in 8000 to 9500), African Americans (one in 15300) and Asian Americans (1 in 32100).25 The decreased frequency means that the diagnosis may be delayed in these individuals both when no screening program exists27 and when an infant screens negative13 because physicians may seek other diagnoses to explain the clinical symptoms. Thus it is important to ensure that the screening method has a low rate of false-negative results, particularly in ethnic communities.

Back to Article Outline

Pros and Cons of Each Method 

IRT/IRT 

There are advantages and disadvantages for each method of screening. All methods that include 2 IRT tests require a second sample. Although this is easier in the 9 US states that routinely require a second sample,28, 29 it is more complicated in states that only require at-risk children to return for a second test. Data reveal that when the second sample is not mandatory, many families do not return30; and for those families who do return, there is moderate anxiety.30, 31, 32 In states that have mandatory second samples, reports indicate that they are also useful for detecting some endocrine conditions (such as secondary hypothyroidism33 and some cases of CAH34) and other inborn errors of metabolism.35

A screening test is not meant to be diagnostic and therefore will always have some “false-positive” results, regardless of method. All children who screen positive undergo a diagnostic sweat test. When the IRT/IRT method is used, many of the false-positive results will be children with perinatal asphyxia or other perinatal health problems.36 On average, African American children have higher IRT than do Caucasian children, even though they have a much lower risk for CF.16, 36, 37 False-positive results, then, will be more common in African Americans. How to quantitatively calculate the harm is unclear, although there are some data to show that parental anxiety persists despite reassurance of a negative sweat test result.32, 38, 39

Children with 2 elevated IRT measurements who have a negative sweat test result are reassured that they do not have CF. Although there are data to show that the higher the IRT, the greater the risk of being a carrier,40 unless counseling and education are provided, families may leave the sweat test unaware of their possible carrier status. There are no data regarding what percentage of families with a negative sweat test result after an abnormal IRT/IRT screen receive genetic counseling or whether it is even recommended given the non-genetic methodology. Whether reproductive counseling of parents is or ought to be viewed as a component of NBS programs, and if so, whether it should be understood as a benefit or harm is controversial41 and discussed in the next section.

IRT/DNA 

Methods that include genetic testing can be done using a single sample. The controversy is the appropriate number of mutations to include in the genetic test. The answer depends in part on the heterogeneity of the population. The most common CF mutation is delta F508. It is found in 72% of the US non-Hispanic Caucasian CF population, but in much lower percentages of patients with CF from other ethnicities (Hispanic Caucasian, 54%; African American, 44%; Asian American, 39%; Ashekenazi Jewish, 31%).26 In 2001, the American College of Medical Genetics Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Screening Working Group recommended a panel of 25 mutations, which would account for >80% of CF alleles in the pan-ethnic US population with CF.42 This panel was updated in 2004 on the basis of a larger, more pan-ethnic CF data-base that now finds 6 additional mutations with a frequency >0.10% and another 14 that occurred at slightly lower frequency (.09-.01) but would be useful for specific ethnic minority communities.26 Adding mutations will improve sensitivity but decrease specificity. The selection of mutation panels, then, is not a simple medical decision.

Under current IRT/DNA methods, all children with an elevated IRT and 1 DNA mutation are advised to undergo a sweat test. Those who have a negative sweat test result are reassured about this child's health. Genetic counseling should be provided because the child has been diagnosed as a carrier, and counseling can provide parents with information about their child's and their own reproductive risks.43, 44 Although the percentage of families that undergoes counseling varies widely between centers, most receive no counseling.45, 46 It is also the case that counseling leaves some parents with residual anxiety.39, 47

Whether to include carrier detection and its potential use in reproductive planning as a benefit or harm of a NBS program is complex,31, 48 because the empirical data to date show that a significant minority of parents whose children are diagnosed as carriers misunderstand recurrence risks despite counseling, and this misunderstanding has reproductive implications.44 It is also of questionable cost-effectiveness in an era in which most women and couples are offered prenatal testing for CF carrier status.49 If the reduction of the number of children with CF is viewed as an economic gain, then the use of IRT/DNA and the identification of carriers and the option of cascade testing of parents and other relatives will be preferred. However, it is important to realize that the current methods do not seek to maximize the number of parent carriers detected because genetic testing is only done on children with elevated IRT. Carrier children (and possibly some affected children) with a normal IRT will be missed. Thus, if one wanted to detect all carriers, DNA testing would be performed on all specimens and not just those with an elevated IRT.

However, one can question the utility or desirability of carrier detection of infants for 3 different reasons: (1) antenatal screening is widely available49 making carrier detection in newborns somewhat redundant; (2) the carrier detection of infants ignores the rights of parents not to know their own carrier status50, 51; and (3) the disclosure of carrier detection of infants ignores the child's right to decide for himself or herself whether he or she wants this information as an adult.52, 53 The identification of newborns as carriers is particularly problematic given the mandatory nature of NBS in contrast with prenatal carrier programs that require a voluntary and informed consent.

If an IRT/DNA method is used, the number of carriers detected will depend on the number of mutations included in the screening test. The more mutations included, the more children will be identified with 1 common mutation. Some of these children will have a borderline sweat test result. These children will be in limbo as they undergo further testing and re-testing. Even those with 1 common mutation and a negative sweat test result are left with some residual uncertainty as they may be a compound heterozygote with a mild or even atypical phenotype.54, 55, 56

If an IRT/DNA method is used, the panel will need to include more rather than fewer mutations to avoid a disproportionate number of missed screened cases (false-negative results) in US ethnic minorities. In fact, to capture a high percentage of cases involving ethnic minorities might even require full sequencing of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator [CFTR] gene. Kammesheidt et al57 have shown the feasibility of temporal temperature gradient electrophoresis-based full sequence analysis and targeted sequencing from DNA in newborn blood specimens, which can increase the identification of mutations in ethnic minorities. This method would permit a more comprehensive diagnosis on 1 blood sample because only children with 2 mutations or variants would need to undergo sweat testing. It should reduce the overall number of cases referred for sweat tests, unless questionable variants are more common than previously anticipated. However, it will identify individuals with 1 clear mutation and 1 questionable variant or even 2 questionable variants, and they will need to undergo sweat testing, and their parents will need counseling about their ambiguous risk status. Many families will be reassured by a negative sweat test result,57 but some will have equivocal sweat test results and need to undergo repeat testing. Depending on whether full sequencing is done as a first step in screening or only in conjunction with an elevated IRT, the number of children who will need genetic counseling may increase significantly. Who will do the counseling and how it will be funded are unanswered given the shortage of genetic professionals and the lack of adequate reimbursement for their services.58

Finally, many programs that use an IRT/DNA method also recommend sweat testing on children with a very high IRT without mutations in an attempt to capture children who have rare mutations. This safeguard will reduce the number of false-negative results.

IRT/DNA/IRT or IRT/IRT/DNA 

There are 2 methods that use both DNA testing and 2 IRT measurements. The first method, IRT/DNA/IRT, applies a mutation panel to primary samples with an elevated IRT. Children whose sample has at least 1 mutation or whose sample has a very high initial IRT measurement are asked to provide a second sample for a second IRT measurement. Only those with an elevated IRT on the second sample undergo sweat testing. The second method, IRT/IRT/DNA, recalls all children with an elevated IRT and performs a second IRT. Mutation analysis is performed if the second IRT sample is elevated. Again, only those with at least 1 identified DNA mutation undergo sweat testing. Both the IRT/DNA/IRT and the IRT/IRT/DNA methods have the same goal: To reduce the number of sweat tests performed because they are costly and raise parental anxiety.

The IRT/DNA/IRT and IRT/IRT/DNA methods have the disadvantages of requiring 2 tests (as is true of all methods involving 2 IRT measurements) and of diagnosing parental carriers (as is true of all methods involving DNA genotyping). The main advantages of these methods over a single IRT/DNA method are that they reduce (1) the number of children who need to undergo sweat testing; and (2) the number of parents who are informed of their child's carrier status and need genetic counseling. However, if one believes that carrier identification of newborns and their parents is a primary benefit of newborn screening, this method reduces the benefit. By reducing the number of carrier families detected, the method may leave individuals with a false sense of security.

Because both methods involve DNA testing, they have the same problem as a single IRT/DNA in that they fail to detect ethnic minorities with rare mutations. Some ethnic minority children with rare mutations may still be detected to the extent that the IRT/IRT/DNA method uses the safeguard of recommending sweat testing of children with a very high IRT measurement, even if no mutations are detected. Modeling in different ethnic communities using different DNA panels would be necessary to determine whether the costs of the extra laboratory testing are outweighed by the benefits achieved by reducing the number of children who need to undergo sweat testing and genetic counseling.

IRT/Pancreatic Associated Proteins 

There is an alternative method developed in France that uses the IRT/pancreatic associate protein [PAP] method.59, 60 IRT/PAP can be done on 1 sample and preliminary data show comparable sensitivity and specificity with the other methods that use the Guthrie cards. However, to date it has not been tested outside of Europe, and its benefits and harms in a pan-ethnic community have not been clarified. Clearly, given the benefits and risks of the 2 current screening methods in the United States, this method should at least be studied.

Economics of CF NBS 

The costs of various NBS methods have been studied. Three cost-effectiveness studies from the United States and 1 from the United Kingdom in the 1990s all found that the cost per infant diagnosed was between $7000 to $11000 and that there was not much difference between the IRT/IRT and the various IRT/DNA methods.31 However, as one increases the number of mutations for which screening is performed, the costs increase because of the increased number of false-positive results that are located and the number of additional sweat tests and genetic counseling sessions that are needed. The cost-benefit calculation for each testing method, then, will vary considerably but so will the number of missed diagnoses. A recent cost-effectiveness modeling exercise of 4 different neonatal CF screening protocols was conducted in 2006. The modelers found that the cost per life year ranged from 24800 to 39800 euros, depending on which of 4 testing strategies (IRT/IRT; IRT/DNA; IRT-DNA-IRT; and IRT-DNA by denaturing gel electrophoresis] were used,61 all of which are comparable or more cost-effective than many other public health screening programs.62 And both US and UK studies find significant cost savings from NBS compared with clinical diagnosis, particularly if indirect cost savings are included.63, 64 Yet how these models account for false-positive and false-negative results and the diagnosis of mild phenotypes are controversial.

How Then Does One Decide Which Methodology to Use? 

NBS is one of the largest and most successful public health initiatives of the past 40 years.65 In 1968, Wilson and Jungner66 delineated 10 criteria that should be examined in determining whether a condition meets a public health program. More recently, attempts have been made to modify these criteria and with the development of tandem mass spectrometry, some have argued that some of these criteria are no longer justifiable.67, 68

The goals of public health programs are to reduce disease and premature death and disability in human populations. The emphasis is at the population level, and in this regard, the concept of social justice is integral to its structure and function.69 NBS is a mandatory program in most states which helps to ensure universal access. Although there have been some NBS programs that began as programs targeted to particular racial/ethnic communities (eg, hemoglobinopathy screening),70, 71 both concerns of justice and concerns of stigmatization have led to a more universal approach with, not surprising, detection of hemoglobinopathies in a wider community than originally hypothesized.72

Given the equity focus of public health programs, method matters. If one method of screening (IRT/DNA) is very effective in non-Hispanic Caucasians but not for ethnic minorities and another method (IRT/IRT) is better able to diagnose CF in all racial and ethnic communities, then it may be justifiable to use the second method even if (1) the frequency of the disease is less common in these racial and ethnic communities; and (2) the alternate screening method costs more or is more cumbersome. This is particularly true for a condition like CF, which has historically been perceived as a “white child's illness.” One concern of a screening program is that it will lead to complacency in physicians that a child with failure to thrive has had “CF” ruled out in the newborn screen.13 Even though physicians must know that a screen is just a screen and will have false-positive and false-negative results, false-positive results may lead to unnecessary psychological distress during a particularly vulnerable period (the newborn period),32 and false-negative results may lead to delays in diagnosis.13, 73 How significant these harms will be depends on which method is used and the heterogeneity of the population. If an IRT/DNA method is used, the false-negative results will most likely include a disproportionate number of minorities. If the result is a delay in diagnosis mainly for minority children, then the method may cause more disproportionate harm than realized.

The IRT/IRT has the advantage that it will not lead to a disproportionate number of missed cases in ethnic minorities. In fact, the opposite is the case in that there are more false-positive results in the African American community. As such, one must determine how many false-positive results can be justified to avoid a false-negative result. In a program like PKU, where a missed diagnosis is almost always devastating, the answer may be different than in CF, where the diagnosis of a child only after he or she has become symptomatic, although not ideal, does not necessarily produce permanent or irreversible harm. That is, the shift from NBS as a public health emergency to a public health service ought to influence how we think about false-positive and false-negative results and the evaluation of costs, benefits, and risks.74

The IRT/IRT has the disadvantage that unless a state has a mandatory second screen, children may not return for a second screen, and this could lead to more missed cases, particularly in the vulnerable populations that lack adequate access to health care. A routine second screen would facilitate the use of the IRT/IRT method by obviating the need to recall families for a second IRT with its attendant anxieties. It would thereby allow states to achieve greater equity in public health goals than they could do by using other screening methods. Although the recommendation for routine second screens has been raised at numerous meetings of the Secretary's Advisory Committee,1 there is currently no proposal for universal adoption. Given the value of a second screen for the use of the IRT/IRT method in CF screening, concerns about justice may be the catalyst for supporting mandatory second screens nationally.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion: Methodology Matters 

Whether one believes that there are compelling data to justify NBS for CF, its inclusion in the uniform panel and its adoption by the Secretary's Advisory Committee have led to its adoption into the NBS panels in most states. Like most public health screening programs, the decision about which method to use for CF NBS involves trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity, between cost and uptake. Mandatory screening ensures that it is provided to virtually all infants. We now need to make sure that the methodology achieves an equitable distribution of both the benefits (early diagnosis) and harms (false-positive and false-negative results), particularly within racial and ethnic minority populations. The IRT/PAP needs further study. Until clinical utility and validity of the IRT/PAP have been established, however, IRT measured during 2 mandatory screens may be the preferred public health solution from a racial and ethnic equity perspective.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders and Genetic Diseases in Newborns and Children. Minutes. http://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/genetics/committee/Accessed January 11, 2008
  2. Newborn Screening: Toward a Uniform Screening Panel and System. http://mchb.hrsa.gov/screening/Accessed January 11, 2008
  3. Grosse SD, Boyle CA, Botkin JR, Comeau AM, Kharrazi M, Rosenfeld M, et al. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: evaluation of benefits and risks and recommendations for state newborn screening programs. MMWR. 2004;53(RR-13):1–36
  4. Wilfond BS, Gollust GE. Policy issues for expanding newborn screening programs: the cystic fibrosis newborn screening experience in the United States. J Pediatr. 2005;146:668–674
  5. March of Dimes (Newborn Screening (United States). Cystic Fibrosis). Last updated January 3, 2008 http://www.marchofdimes.com/peristats/level1.aspx?reg=99&top=12&stop=239&lev=1&slev=1&obj=20Accessed January 11, 2008
  6. Southern KW, Munck A, Pollitt R, Travert G, Zanolla L, Dankert-Roelse J, et al. A survey of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in Europe. J Cystic Fibrosis. 2007;6:57–65
  7. Massie J, Clements B Australian Paediatric Respiratory Group. Diagnosis of cystic fibrosis after newborn screening: the Australasian experience-twenty years and five million babies later: a consensus statement from the Australasian Paediatric Respiratory Group. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2005;39:440–446
  8. Young SS, Kharrazi M, Pearl M, Cunningham G. Cystic fibrosis screening in newborns: results from existing programs. Curr Opin Pulmonary Med. 2001;7:427–433
  9. Wilfond B, Rothenberg LS. Ethical issues in cystic fibrosis newborn screening: from data to public health policy. Curr Opin Pulmonary Med. 2002;8:529–534
  10. Bonham JR, Downing M, Dalton A. Screening for cystic fibrosis: the practice and the debate. Eur J Pediatr. 2003;162(Suppl 1):S42–S45
  11. Dankert-Roelse JE, Merelle ME. Review of Outcomes of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis versus non-screening in Europe. J Pediatr. 2005;147:S15–S20
  12. Wilfond BS, Parad RB, Fost N. Balancing benefits and risks for cystic fibrosis newborn screening: implications for policy decisions. J Pediatr. 2005;147(3 Suppl):S109–S113
  13. Wagener JS, Sontag MK, Sagel SD. Accurso FJ (Update on newborn screening for cystic fibrosis). Curr Opin Pulmonary Med. 2004;10:500–504
  14. Botkin JR, Clayton EW, Fost NC, Burke W, Murray TH, Baily MA, et al. Newborn screening technology: proceed with caution. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1793–1799
  15. Wilcken B, Wiley V, Sherry G, Bayliss U. Neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: a comparison of two strategies for case detection in 1.2 million babies. J Pediatr. 1995;126:965–970
  16. Gregg RG, Simante A, Farrell PM, Koscik R, Kosorok MR, Laxova A, et al. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in Wisconsin: comparison of biochemical and molecular methods. Pediatrics. 1997;99:819–824
  17. Price JF. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: do we need a second IRT?. Arch Dis Childhood. 2006;91:209–210
  18. Narzi L, Lucarelli M, Lelli A, Grandoni F, Lo Cicero S, Ferraro A, et al. Comparison of two different protocols of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Clin Genet. 2002;62:245–249
  19. Ross LF. Methodology matters. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:589
  20. Crossley J, Elliott R, Smith P. Dried-blood spot screening for cystic fibrosis in the newborn. Lancet. 1979;8114:472–474
  21. Seltzer WK, Accurso F, Fall MZ, VanRiper AJ, Descartes M, Huang Y, et al. Screening for cystic fibrosis: feasibility of molecular genetic analysis of dried blood specimens. Biochem Med Metabolic Biol. 1991;46:105–109
  22. Braun AT, Farrell PM, Ferec C, Audrezet MP, Laxova A, Li Z, et al. Cystic fibrosis mutations and genotype-pulmonary phenotype analysis. J Cystic Fibrosis. 2006;5:33–41
  23. Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K. False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2000;4(5):
  24. Yunis KA, Nasr MR, Lepejian G, Najjar S, Daher R. False-negative primary neonatal thyroid screening: the need for clinical vigilance and secondary screening. J Med Screening. 2003;10:2–4
  25. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference. Genetic testing for cystic fibrosis. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:1529–1539
  26. Watson MS, Cutting GR, Desnick RJ, Driscoll DA, Klinger K, Mennuti M, et al. Cystic fibrosis population carrier screening: 2004 revision of American College of Medical Genetics mutation panel. Genet Med. 2004;6:387–391
  27. Spencer DA, Venkataraman M, Weller PH. Delayed diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in children from ethnic minorities. Lancet. 1998;342:238
  28. Doyle DL, Sanderson M, Bentvelzen J, Fineman RM. Factors which influence the rate of receiving a routine second newborn screening test in Washington State. Am J Med Genet. 1995;59:417–420
  29. Therrell BL, Adams J. Newborn screening in North America. J Inherited Metab Dis. 2007;30:447–465
  30. Sontag MK, Hammond KB, Zielenski J, Wagener JS, Accurso FJ. Two-tiered immunoreactive trypsinogen-based newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in Colorado: screening efficacy and diagnostic outcomes. J Pediatr. 2005;147:S83–S88
  31. Murray J, Cuckle H, Taylor G, Littlewood J, Hewison J. Screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 1999;3(8):
  32. Moran J, Quirk K, Duff AJ, Brownlee KG. Newborn screening for CF in a regional paediatric centre: the psychosocial effects of false-positive IRT results on parents. J Cystic Fibrosis. 2007;6:250–254
  33. Maniatis AK, Taylor L, Letson GW, Bloch CA, Kappy MS, Zeitler P. Congenital hypothyroidism and the second newborn metabolic screening in Colorado, USA. J Pediatr Endocrinol. 2006;19:31–38
  34. Brosnan CA, Brosnan P, Therrell BL, Slater CH, Swint JM, Annegers JF, et al. A comparative cost analysis of newborn screening for classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia in Texas. Public Health Rep. 1998;113:170–178
  35. Tuerck J. Newborn screening program infrastructure: evaluation and tracking database for the long-term follow-up of infants identified by MS/MS newborn screening. Presented at the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders and Genetic Diseases in Newborns and Children Summary of Third Meeting, Washington, DC, January 13-14, 2005 http://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/genetics/committee/3rdmeeting.htmAccessed January 11, 2008
  36. Rock MJ, Mischler EH, Farrell PM, Bruns WT, Hassemer DJ, Laessig RH. Immunoreactive trypsinogen screening for cystic fibrosis: characterization of infants with a false-positive screening test. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1989;6:42–48
  37. Cheillan D, Vercherat M, Cheavlier-Porst F, Charcosset M, Rolland MO, Dorche C. False positive results in neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis based on a three-stage protocol (IRT/DNA/IRT): Should we adjust IRT cut-off to ethnic origin?. J Inherited Metab Dis. 2005;28:813–818
  38. Baroni MA, Anderson YE, Mischler E. Cystic fibrosis newborn screening: impact of early screening results on parenting stress. Pediatr Nurs. 1997;23:143–151
  39. Lewis S, Curnow L, Ross M, Massie J. Parental attitudes to the identification of their infants as carriers of cystic fibrosis by newborn screening. J Paediatr Child Health. 2006;42:533–537
  40. Castellani C, Picci L, Scarpa M, Dechecchi MC, Zanolla L, Assael BM, et al. Cystic fibrosis carriers have higher neonatal immunoreactive trypsinogen values than non-carriers. Am J Med Genet. 2005;135:142–144
  41. Stone DH, Stewart S. Screening and the new genetics; a public health perspective on the ethical debate. J Public Health Med. 1996;18:3–5
  42. Grody WW, Cutting GR, Klinger KW, Richards CS, Watson MS, Desnick RJ. Laboratory standards and guidelines for population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Genet Med. 2001;3:149–154
  43. Dudding T, Wilcken B, Burgess B, Hambly J, Turner G. Reproductive decisions after neonatal screening identifies cystic fibrosis. Arch Dis Childhood Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2000;82:F124–F127
  44. Mischler EH, Wilfond BS, Fost N, Laxova A, Reiser C, Sauer CM, et al. Cystic fibrosis newborn screening: impact on reproductive behavior and implications for genetic counseling. Pediatrics. 1998;102:44–52
  45. Comeau AM, Parad R, Gerstle R, O'Sullivan BP, Dorkin HL, Dovey M, et al. Communications systems and their models: Massachusetts parent compliance with recommended specialty care after positive cystic fibrosis newborn screening result. J Pediatr. 2005;147(Suppl):S98–S100
  46. Giusti R, Badgwell A, Iglesias AD New York State Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening Consortium. New York State cystic fibrosis consortium: the first 2.5 years of experience with cystic fibrosis newborn screening in an ethnically diverse population. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e460–e467
  47. Tluczek A, Koscik RL, Modaff P, Pfeil D, Rock MJ, Farrell PM, et al. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents' preferences regarding counseling at the time of infants' sweat test. J Genet Counsel. 2006;15:277–291
  48. Oliver S, Dezateux C, Kavanagh J, Lempert T, Stewart R. Disclosing to parents newborn carrier status identified by routine blood spot screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(4):CD003859
  49. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 325, December 2005. Update on carrier screening for cystic fibrosis Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:1465–1468
  50. Bennett R. Antenatal genetic testing and the right to remain in ignorance. Theoretical Med Bioethics. 2001;22:461–471
  51. Takala T, Hayry M. Genetic ignorance, moral obligations and social duties. J Med Philos. 2000;25:107–113
  52. Working Party of the Clinical Genetics Society (UK). The Genetic Testing of Children. J Med Genet. 1994;31:785–797
  53. American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG)/American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG). Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents. Am J Human Genet. 1995;57:1233–1241
  54. LeGrys VA, Wood RE. Incidence and implications of false-negative sweat test reports in patients with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1988;4:169–172
  55. Doughty IM, Ward I, Schwarz M, David TJ. Delayed diagnosis of cystic fibrosis due to normal sweat electrolytes. J R Soc Med. 1995;88:417P–418P
  56. Fitzgerald D, Van Asperen P, Henry R, Waters D, Freelander M, Wilson M, et al. Delayed diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in children with a rare genotype (delta F508/R117H). J Paediatr Child Health. 1995;31:168–171
  57. Kammesheidt A, Kharrazi M, Graham S, Young S, Pearl M, Dunlop C, et al. Comprehensive genetic analysis of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator from dried blood specimens—Implications for newborn screening. Genet Med. 2006;8:557–562
  58. Bernhardt BA, Weiner J, Foster EC, Tumpson JE, Pyeritz RE. The economics of clinical genetics services (II. A time analysis of a medical genetics clinic). Am J Human Genet. 1987;41:559–565
  59. Sarles J, Berthezene P, Le Louarn C, Somma C, Perini JM, Catheline M, et al. Combining immunoreactive trypsinogen and pancreatitis-associated protein assays, a method of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis that avoids DNA analysis. J Pediatr. 2005;147:302–305
  60. Sarles J, Barthellemy S, Ferec C, Iovanna J, Roussey M, Farriaux JP, et al. Blood concentrations of pancreatitis associated protein in neonates: relevance to neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1999;80:F118–F122
  61. van den Akker-van Marle ME, Dankert HM, Verkerk PH, Dankert-Roelse JE. Cost-effectiveness of 4 Neonatal screening strategies for cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics. 2006;118:896–905
  62. Stone PW, Teutsch S, Chapman RH, Bell C, Goldie SJ, Neumann PJ. Cost-utility analyses of clinical preventive services: published ratios, 1976-1997. Am J Prevent Med. 2000;19:15–23
  63. Sims EJ, Mugford M, Clark A, Aitken D, McCormick J, Metha G, et al. Cystic Fibrosis Database Steering Committee Economic implications of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: a cost of illness retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2007;369:1187–1195
  64. Lee DS, Rosenberg JA, Peterson A, Makholm L, Hoffman G, Laessig RH, et al. Analysis of the Costs of Diagnosing Cystic Fibrosis with a Newborn Screening Program. J Pediatr. 2003;142:617–623
  65. Carroll AE, Downs SM. Comprehensive cost-utility analysis of newborn screening strategies. Pediatrics. 2006;117:S287–S295
  66. Wilson JMG, Jungner F. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease (Public Health Papers, no. 34). Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968;
  67. Therrell BL. U.S. newborn screening policy dilemmas for the twenty-first century. Molec Genet Metab. 2001;74:64–74
  68. Pollitt RJ. International perspectives on newborn screening. J Inherited Metab Dis. 2006;29:390–396
  69. Dabrock P. Public Health Genetics and Social Justice. Commun Genet. 2006;9:34–39
  70. Cronin EK, Normand C, Henthorn JS, Hickman M, Davies SC. Costing model for neonatal screening and diagnosis of haemoglobinopathies. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1998;79:F161–F167
  71. Grosse SD, Olney RS, Baily MA. The cost effectiveness of universal versus selective newborn screening for sickle cell disease in the US and the UK: a critique. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:239–247
  72. Shafer FE, Lorey F, Cunningham GC, Klumpp C, Vichinsky E, Lubin B. Newborn screening for sickle cell disease: 4 years of experience from California's newborn screening program. J Pediatr Hematol/Oncol. 1996;18:36–41
  73. Henry RL, Boulton TJ, Roddick LG. False negative results on newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. J Paediatr Child Health. 1990;26:150–151
  74. Grosse SD, Boyle CA, Kenneson A, Khoury MJ, Wilfond BS. From public health emergency to public health service: the implications of evolving criteria for newborn screening panels. Pediatrics. 2006;117:923–929

 This study was funded by NIH grant R01 HD043455-01. The author declares no conflict of interest.

PII: S0022-3476(08)00371-5

doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.04.061

The Journal of Pediatrics
Volume 153, Issue 3 , Pages 308-313, September 2008

Article Tools