Mayo Clinic researcher calls for improved newborn screening
Main Category: GeneticsArticle Date: 23 Feb 2005 - 3:00 PDT
A Mayo Clinic physician and researcher today reported that a combination of the latest technology and double-tiered analysis could improve genetic screening for newborns as much as forty-fold, while testing for dozens more diseases than is now performed in some states.
Pediatric geneticist Piero Rinaldo, M.D., Ph.D., presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, D.C.
Dr. Rinaldo said that tandem mass spectrometry - a multiplex platform available to screen for upwards of 40 potentially life-threatening genetic diseases - is not in use in many states. The inconsistent use of existing technology at the state level means that children born in some states will not be diagnosed until it is too late, Dr. Rinaldo explained. In nearly all cases, immediate treatment for recognized genetic diseases can improve or cure infants' conditions. If undiagnosed in the first few days after birth, some conditions can kill or cause irreversible brain damage.
In addition to unresolved issues of lack of uniformity and fairness, Dr. Rinaldo addressed the problem of inconsistent performance at the analytical level leading to significant variability in quality parameters, for example false positive rate and positive predictive value. He argued that better performance could be achieved by the addition of second-tier analyses. These are biochemical and/or molecular confirmatory tests performed on the same blood spot collected at birth. The advantage of testing the specimen already available, instead of requesting a repeat collection or a blood sample, is to prevent the anxiety and stress that families would experience until the initial screening results on their infants are shown to be false.
Dr. Rinaldo told conference attendees that Mayo Clinic cooperated with the Minnesota Department of Health to develop a secondary analysis of the false positives that all but eliminated the problem for one particular condition, congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Compared to a relatively low false positive rate of just under half of one percent in 2003, the secondary screen lowered the false positive percentage to six-hundredths of one percent (0.06%) in the last half of 2004. He says the system not only improves the value of screenings, but can make them more cost effective.
He also reported that in the near future screening programs are likely to be further expanded to include testing beyond the newborn period for additional diseases such as Wilson's disease, which causes copper to build in vital organs such as the brain and liver, and congenital disorders of glycosylation, a fast growing group of newly discovered inborn errors of metabolism.
Dr. Rinaldo's remarks were part of a symposium entitled "The Future of Newborn Screening: Science, Policy and Technology," organized by researchers from the National Institute of Childhood Diseases and the University of Miami School of Medicine.
Contact: Bob Nellis
newsbureau@mayo.edu
Mayo Clinic
Visit our genetics section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/20254.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/20254.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
What a difference a newborn screen makes!
posted by Penny Jaquith on 24 Feb 2005 at 12:36 amI have two children. One with a rare inborn error of metabolism who is severely disabled. My sone, while undergoing newborn screening to ensure he did not have the same disorder, was found to have a different metabolic acidosis. He was diagnosed at birth, treated, and is fine. Metabolic crisis from his Hydromethylmalonic Acidemia would have either been fatal or caused disabilities as severe as his sister's. Legislatures should count the cost of newborn screening in terms of the life of a child, the well-being and positive results from early intervention, and weigh the cost of screening against the cost of care to insurance providers, Medicaid and other state agencies for medications, supplies and respite care. I'll stand up to anyone on those grounds and show them my two children, one without screening and the one with. The pain in the face of my child with seizures and in a wheelchair -- compared to my now healthy child.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



