Search

European CF Society Neonatal Screening Working Group (ECFS NSWG): Sabine Renner , Max Zeyda , Elke de Wachter , Luc Regal , Felix Votava, Andrea Holubova, Marianne Skov , Tessa Morgan, Paul Bregeaut , Loretta O'Grady, Ines Bucci , Stefano Pantano , Simonetta Simonetti, Domenica De Venuto, Donatello Salvatore, Nicola Perrotti, Mimma Caloiero, Giuseppe Castaldo, Antonella Tosco, Francesca Righetti, Giovanna Pisi, Fiorella Battistini, Antonio Angeloni, Giuseppe Cimino, Giovanni Fiocchi, Antonella Angiolillo, Michela Cassanello, Luisella Alberti, Laura E Claut, Raffaele Badolato, Enza Pavanello, Benedetta Fabrizzi, Elisabetta Bignamini, Anna Cardillo, Mariangela Lombardo, Letizia Cocciadiferro, Lisa Termini, Daniela Dolce, Vito Terlizzi, Anna Tamanini, Francesca Pauro, Giancarlo la Marca, Elina Aleksejeva, Dita Gaidule-Logina, Stoika Fustik, Violeta Anastasovska, Marelle Bouva, Alastair Reid, Jennifer Cundick, Emma Lundman, Egil Bakkeheim, Katarzyna Zybert, Mariusz Oltarzewski, Laura Vilarinho, Victoria Sherman, Elena Kondratyeva, Sarah Smith, Gordana Vilotijevic Dautovic, Maria Knapkova, Zuzana Mydlova, Rosa Mª López, Valle Velasco, Felicitas Díaz Flores, Cristóbal Colón Mejeras, Eva Sl Pedersen, Ugur Ozcelik, Bulent Karadag, Halyna Makukh, Moat Stuart. European CF Society Neonatal Screening Working Group (ECFS NSWG): INSA - Laura Vilarinho Background: The aim of this study was to record the current status of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) for CF across Europe and assess performance. Methods: Survey of representatives of NBS for CF programmes across Europe. Performance was assessed through a framework developed in a previous exercise. Results: In 2022, we identified 22 national and 34 regional programmes in Europe. Barriers to establishing NBS included cost and political inertia. Performance was assessed from 2019 data reported by 21 national and 21 regional programmes. All programmes employed different protocols, with IRT-DNA the most common strategy. Six national and 11 regional programmes did not use DNA analysis. Conclusions: Integrating DNA analysis into the NBS protocol improves PPV, but at the expense of increased carrier and CFSPID recognition. Some programmes employ strategies to mitigate these outcomes. Programmes should constantly strive to improve performance but large datasets are needed to assess outcomes reliably. Highlights: In 2022, newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) for CF is undertaken in 30 European countries, 26 of them are national programmes; Some programmes are still not achieving ECFS standards. Compared to 2014, there is an improvement in sensitivity but a deterioration in achieving a sufficient PPV; There continues to be a wide variety of approaches, but the majority of national programmes are now using DNA analysis as a 2nd tier; This survey demonstrates areas of good practice, but there is considerable scope for improvement in the quality of NBS for CF across Europe; The framework of the 20 parameters to calculate the 8 key outcomes should be part of any annual report of a CF NBS programme, and thus improve future surveys. The survey was funded by the European CF Society info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The Predicting Asthma Risk in Children (PARC) tool uses questionnaire-based respiratory symptoms collected from preschool children to predict asthma risk 5 years later. The tool was developed and validated in population cohorts but not validated using a clinical cohort. We aimed to externally validate the PARC tool in a pediatric pulmonology clinic setting.The Swiss Paediatric Airway Cohort (SPAC) is a prospective cohort of children seen in pediatric pulmonology clinics across Switzerland. We included children aged 1-6 years with cough or wheeze at baseline who completed the 2-year follow-up questionnaire. The outcome was defined as current wheeze plus use of asthma medication. We assessed performance using: sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV), area under the curve (AUC), scaled Brier's score, and Nagelkerke's RAmong 346 children included, 125 (36%) reported the outcome after 2 years. At a PARC score of 4: sensitivity was higher (95% vs. 79%), specificity lower (14% vs. 57%), and NPV and PPV comparable (0.84 vs. 0.87 and 0.37 vs. 0.42) in SPAC versus LRC. AUC (0.71 vs. 0.78), RThe PARC tool shows some clinical utility, particularly for ruling out the development of asthma in young children, but performance limitations highlight the need for new prediction tools to be developed specifically for the clinical setting.