Commentary and Review

Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: an opportunity to improve care and outcomes

This Commentary summarizes what the author has learned in 46 years of research on newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) combined with healthcare and public health practice. The original expectation was that screening for this relatively common, life-threatening genetic disorder would lead to consistently timely diagnoses in the neonatal period and be equitable. Unfortunately, this ambitious goal has not been achieved in the USA despite the availability of an excellent, although imperfect, 2-tiered screening test employing immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) and DNA analysis for pathogenic variants in the gene that encodes the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). In fact, variations in the quality of NBS programs, inconsistencies in their operations, and disparities in outcomes have been prominent features. The causes include leadership challenges and deficiencies among both CF centers and NBS labs; failures to form effective partnerships among CF centers and with NBS programs; relatively rapid implementation after 2005 with variable quality planning; misunderstandings and erroneous dogma about CF; data limitations regarding IRT, especially cutoff values, and CFTR genetics; tolerance of suboptimal protocols and false negative results; problems in dried blood spot collections plus a lack of transparency and national oversight; partial lack of readiness, qualifications, funding and/or willingness to innovate with floating IRT cutoffs and DNA/CFTR analyses; follow up challenges/deficiencies impairing timeliness, including sweat testing limitations; and published guidelines that are more descriptive than sufficiently critical and directive. But the lessons learned through uniquely intensive CF NBS research have been enlightening and guided the U.S. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation to nationwide quality improvement initiatives.

We evaluated whether implementation of cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) leads to equitable timeliness of initial evaluation. We compared age at first event (AFE, age at sweat test, encounter and/or care episode) between infants categorized as Black/African American, American Indian/ Native Alaskan, Asian, and/or Hispanic and/or other (Group 1) to White and not Hispanic infants (Group 2).

This retrospective cohort study from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry (CFFPR) included infants born 2010-2018. Race and ethnicity categories followed US Census definitions. The primary outcome was AFE; the secondary outcome was weight for age (WFA) z-score averaged 12 to < 24 months. We compared distributions by Wilcoxon rank-sum test and proportions by Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. A nested cohort study used a linear mixed effects model of variables that affect WFA, chosen a priori, to evaluate associations with 1-year WFA z-score.

Among 6354 infants, 21% were in Group 1. Group 1 median AFE was 31 days (IQR 19, 49) and Group 2 was 22 days (IQR 14,36) (p< .001). Median WFA z-score at 1-2 years was lower in Group 1. In 3017 infants with complete data on variables of interest, AFE, Black race, CFTR variant class I-III, prematurity and public insurance were associated with lower 1-year WFA z-score.

Differences in AFE for infants with CF from historically marginalized groups may exacerbate long standing health disparities. We speculate that inequitable identification of CFTR gene variants and/or bias may influence timeliness of evaluation after an out-of-range NBS.

Because cystic fibrosis (CF) can be difficult to diagnose, and because information about the genetic complexities and pathologic basis of the disease has grown so rapidly over the decades, several consensus conferences have been held by the US CF Foundation, and a variety of other efforts to improve diagnostic practices have been organized by the European CF Society. Despite these efforts, the application of diagnostic criteria has been variable and caused confusion.

To improve diagnosis and achieve standardization in terms and definitions worldwide, the CF Foundation in 2015 convened a committee of 32 experts in the diagnosis of CF from 9 countries. As part of the process, all previous consensus-seeking exercises sponsored by the CF Foundation, along with the important efforts of the European CF Society, were comprehensively and critically reviewed. The goal was to better understand why consensus conferences and their publications have not led to the desired results.

Lessons learned from previous diagnosis consensus processes and products were identified. It was decided that participation in developing a consensus was generally not inclusive enough for global impact. It was also found that many efforts to address sweat test issues were valuable but did not always improve clinical practices as CF diagnostic testing evolved. It also became clear from this review that premature applications of potential diagnostic tests such as nasal potential difference and intestinal current measurement should be avoided until validation and standardization occur. Finally, we have learned that due to the significant and growing number of cases that are challenging to diagnose, an associated continuing medical education program is both desirable and necessary.

It is necessary but not sufficient to organize and publish CF diagnosis consensus processes. Follow-up implementation efforts and monitoring practices seem essential.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) can be difficult to diagnose, even when newborn screening (NBS) tests yield positive results. This challenge is exacerbated by the multitude of NBS protocols, misunderstandings about screening vs diagnostic tests, and the lack of guidelines for presumptive diagnoses. There is also confusion regarding the designation of age at diagnosis.

To improve diagnosis and achieve standardization in definitions worldwide, the CF Foundation convened a committee of 32 experts with a mission to develop clear and actionable consensus guidelines on diagnosis of CF with an emphasis on screened populations, especially the newborn population. A comprehensive literature review was performed with emphasis on relevant articles published during the past decade.

After reviewing the common screening protocols and outcome scenarios, 14 of 27 consensus statements were drafted that apply to screened populations. These were approved by 80% or more of the participants.

It is recommended that all diagnoses be established by demonstrating dysfunction of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) channel, initially with a sweat chloride test and, when needed, potentially with newer methods assessing membrane transport directly, such as intestinal current measurements. Even in babies with 2 CF-causing mutations detected via NBS, diagnosis must be confirmed by demonstrating CFTR dysfunction. The committee also recommends that the latest classifications identified in the Clinical and Functional Translation of CFTR project [http://www.cftr2.org/index.php] should be used to aid with CF diagnosis. Finally, to avoid delays in treatment, we provide guidelines for presumptive diagnoses and recommend how to determine the age of diagnosis.