ObjectiveWales has an immunoreactive trypsin (IRT)-DNA cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) programme. Most CF NBS false negative cases are due to an IRT concentration below the screening threshold. The accuracy of IRT results is dependent on the quality of the dried bloodspot (DBS) sample. The aim of this study was to determine the cause of false negative cases in CF NBS and their relationship to DBS quality.DesignLongitudinal birth cohort.SettingWales 1996–2016.PatientsChildren with CF.InterventionsIdentification of all CF patients with triangulation of multiple data sources to detect false negative cases.Main outcome measuresFalse negative cases.ResultsOver 20 years, 673 952 infants were screened and 239 were diagnosed with CF (incidence 1:2819). The sensitivity of the programme was 0.958, and positive predictive value was 0.476. Eighteen potential false negatives were identified, of whom eight were excluded: four screened outside Wales, two had complex comorbidities, no identified cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) variants on extended analysis and thus not considered to have CF and two were diagnosed after their 16th birthday. Of the 10 false negatives, 9 had a low DBS IRT and at least one common CFTR variant and thus should have received a sweat test under the programme. DBS cards were available for inspection for five of the nine false negative cases—all were classified as small/insufficient or poor quality.ConclusionsThe majority of false negatives had a low bloodspot IRT, and this was associated with poor quality DBS. The optimal means to improve the sensitivity of our CF NBS programme would be to improve DBS sample quality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.