European survey of newborn bloodspot screening for CF: opportunity to address challenges and improve performance.

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.

External validation of the Predicting Asthma Risk in Children tool in a clinical cohort.

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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 R2 scores. We compared performance in SPAC to that in the original population, the Leicester Respiratory Cohort (LRC). RESULTS: Among 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), R2 (0.18 vs. 0.28) and Brier's scores (0.13 vs. 0.22) were lower in SPAC. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.