{"title":"Evaluating a Novel Newborn Screening Methodology: Combined Genetic and Biochemical Screenings","authors":"Bin Yu , Yuqi Yang , Lingna Zhou , 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":"55 2","pages":"Article 102959"},"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.
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.