Dietzen, Dennis J.

AbstractBackground: Almost all newborns in the US are screened at birth for multiple inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry. Screening tests are designed to be sufficiently sensitive so that cases are not missed. The NACB recognized a need for standard guidelines for laboratory confirmation of a positive newborn screen such that all babies would benefit from equal and optimal follow-up by confirmatory testing.Methods: A committee was formed to review available data pertaining to confirmatory testing. The committee evaluated previously published guidelines, published methodological and clinical studies, clinical case reports, and expert opinion to support optimal confirmatory testing. Grading was based on guidelines adopted from criteria derived from the US Preventive Services Task Force and on the strength of recommendations and the quality of the evidence. Three primary methods of analyte measurement were evaluated for confirmatory testing including measurement of amino acids, organic acids, and carnitine esters. The committee graded the evidence for diagnostic utility of each test for the screened conditions.Results: Ample data and experience were available to make strong recommendations for the practice of analyzing amino acids, organic acids, and acylcarnitines. Likewise, strong recommendations were made for the follow-up test menu for many disorders, particularly those with highest prevalence. Fewer data exist to determine the impact of newborn screening on patient outcomes in all but a few disorders. The guidelines also provide an assessment of developing technology that will fuel a refinement of current practice and ultimate expansion of the diseases detectable by tandem mass spectrometry.Conclusions: Guidelines are provided for optimal follow-up testing for positive newborn screens using tandem mass spectrometry. The committee regards these tests as reliable and currently optimal for follow-up testing. .

Abstract Background: Immunoassay-based screening for amphetamines has a variable positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting amphetamine abuse. The lack of immunoassay specificity necessitates confirmatory testing by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC/MS), but the technical complexity and expense of GC/MS limit its availability. Physicians may make decisions regarding patient disposition based on unverified results. In this study we assessed the utility of using dose–response properties to distinguish urine samples containing amphetamines from samples containing cross-immunoreactive species. Methods: Urine was supplemented with known concentrations of amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), or pseudoephedrine. Using a series of dilutions, we determined the maximum change in rate over the fractional change in concentration for each compound in the Emit® II amphetamine/methamphetamine immunoassay. Patient urine samples that screened positive for amphetamines were diluted 1:1, 1:10, and 1:20, and maximum slope estimates within the dynamic assay range were determined. An optimal slope cutoff that differentiated samples containing (meth)amphetamine from those containing cross-reacting species was determined by ROC analysis. Results: The slope of the dose response was largest for amphetamine and methamphetamine, followed by MDMA and pseudoephedrine. The optimum slope cutoff for identifying patient specimens containing (meth)amphetamine was 320 (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 90%; PPV, 92%). High concentrations of less reactive compounds may mask low concentrations of amphetamines. Conclusions: Use of the slope of the dose–response relationship in patient urine specimens can enhance the PPV of presumptive positive immunoassay results but does not exclude the presence of low amphetamine concentrations in samples containing high concentrations of cross-reactive species.