Cargando…

Pancreatitis-Associated Protein in Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Strengths and Weaknesses

There are currently four countries and one local region in Europe that use PAP in their newborn screening programme. The first country to employ PAP at a national level was the Netherlands, which started using IRT/PAP/DNA/EGA in 2011. Germany followed in 2016 with a slightly different IRT/PAP/DNA st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sommerburg, Olaf, Hammermann, Jutta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33073025
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijns6020028
_version_ 1783570098929270784
author Sommerburg, Olaf
Hammermann, Jutta
author_facet Sommerburg, Olaf
Hammermann, Jutta
author_sort Sommerburg, Olaf
collection PubMed
description There are currently four countries and one local region in Europe that use PAP in their newborn screening programme. The first country to employ PAP at a national level was the Netherlands, which started using IRT/PAP/DNA/EGA in 2011. Germany followed in 2016 with a slightly different IRT/PAP/DNA strategy. Portugal also started in 2016, but with an IRT/PAP/IRT programme, and in 2017, Austria changed its IRT/IRT protocol to an IRT/PAP/IRT program. In 2018, Catalonia started to use an IRT/PAP/IRT/DNA strategy. The strengths of PAP are the avoidance of carrier detection and a lower detection rate of CFSPID. PAP seems to have advantages in detecting CF in ethnically-diverse populations, as it is a biochemical approach to screening, which looks for pancreatic injury. Compared to an IRT/IRT protocol, an IRT/PAP protocol leads to earlier diagnoses. While PAP can be assessed with the same screening card as the first IRT, the second IRT in an IRT/IRT protocol requires a second heel prick around the 21st day of the patient’s life. However, IRT/PAP has two main weaknesses. First, an IRT/PAP protocol seems to have a lower sensitivity compared to a well-functioning IRT/DNA protocol, and second, IRT/PAP that is performed as a purely biochemical protocol has a very low positive predictive value. However, if the advantages of PAP are to be exploited, a combination of IRT/PAP with genetic screening or a second IRT as a third tier could be an alternative for a sufficiently performing CF-NBS protocol.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7422993
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74229932020-10-15 Pancreatitis-Associated Protein in Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Strengths and Weaknesses Sommerburg, Olaf Hammermann, Jutta Int J Neonatal Screen Review There are currently four countries and one local region in Europe that use PAP in their newborn screening programme. The first country to employ PAP at a national level was the Netherlands, which started using IRT/PAP/DNA/EGA in 2011. Germany followed in 2016 with a slightly different IRT/PAP/DNA strategy. Portugal also started in 2016, but with an IRT/PAP/IRT programme, and in 2017, Austria changed its IRT/IRT protocol to an IRT/PAP/IRT program. In 2018, Catalonia started to use an IRT/PAP/IRT/DNA strategy. The strengths of PAP are the avoidance of carrier detection and a lower detection rate of CFSPID. PAP seems to have advantages in detecting CF in ethnically-diverse populations, as it is a biochemical approach to screening, which looks for pancreatic injury. Compared to an IRT/IRT protocol, an IRT/PAP protocol leads to earlier diagnoses. While PAP can be assessed with the same screening card as the first IRT, the second IRT in an IRT/IRT protocol requires a second heel prick around the 21st day of the patient’s life. However, IRT/PAP has two main weaknesses. First, an IRT/PAP protocol seems to have a lower sensitivity compared to a well-functioning IRT/DNA protocol, and second, IRT/PAP that is performed as a purely biochemical protocol has a very low positive predictive value. However, if the advantages of PAP are to be exploited, a combination of IRT/PAP with genetic screening or a second IRT as a third tier could be an alternative for a sufficiently performing CF-NBS protocol. MDPI 2020-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7422993/ /pubmed/33073025 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijns6020028 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Sommerburg, Olaf
Hammermann, Jutta
Pancreatitis-Associated Protein in Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Strengths and Weaknesses
title Pancreatitis-Associated Protein in Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Strengths and Weaknesses
title_full Pancreatitis-Associated Protein in Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Strengths and Weaknesses
title_fullStr Pancreatitis-Associated Protein in Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Strengths and Weaknesses
title_full_unstemmed Pancreatitis-Associated Protein in Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Strengths and Weaknesses
title_short Pancreatitis-Associated Protein in Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Strengths and Weaknesses
title_sort pancreatitis-associated protein in neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: strengths and weaknesses
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33073025
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijns6020028
work_keys_str_mv AT sommerburgolaf pancreatitisassociatedproteininneonatalscreeningforcysticfibrosisstrengthsandweaknesses
AT hammermannjutta pancreatitisassociatedproteininneonatalscreeningforcysticfibrosisstrengthsandweaknesses