Log in
Pediatrics and neonatology

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of CRMS/CFSPID

CFF2024Full text
Full text · CC BYGreen DM, Lahiri T, Raraigh KS, Ruiz F, Spano J, Antos N et al.. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Evidence-Based Guideline for the Management of CRMS/CFSPID. Pediatrics, 2024. Licensed under CC BY. Changes: reformatted for the web. Original: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-064657

Summary

A multidisciplinary committee developed evidence-based guidelines for the management of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome/cystic fibrosis screen-positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CRMS/CFSPID). A total of 24 patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions were generated based on surveys sent to people with CRMS/CFSPID and clinicians caring for these individuals, previous recommendations, and expert committee input. Four a priori working groups (genetic testing, monitoring, treatment, and psychosocial/communication issues) were used to provide structure to the committee. A systematic review of the evidence was conducted, and found numerous case series and cohort studies, but no randomized clinical trials. A total of 30 recommendations were graded using the US Preventive Services Task Force methodology. Recommendations that received ≥80% consensus among the entire committee were approved. The resulting recommendations were of moderate to low certainty for the majority of the statements because of the low quality of the evidence. Highlights of the recommendations include thorough evaluation with genetic sequencing, deletion/duplication analysis if <2 disease-causing variants were noted in newborn screening; repeat sweat testing until at least age 8 but limiting further laboratory testing, including microbiology, radiology, and pulmonary function testing; minimal use of medications, which when suggested, should lead to shared decision-making with families; and providing communication with emphasis on social determinants of health and shared decision-making to minimize barriers which may affect processing and understanding of this complex designation. Future research will be needed regarding medication use, antibiotic therapy, and the use of chest imaging for monitoring the development of lung disease.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) has been offered in many countries around the world and in every US state since 2010.1 An unintended consequence of CF NBS is the detection of infants with an abnormal CF NBS result but inconclusive diagnostic testing, which has been termed CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR)-related metabolic syndrome (CRMS) in the United States and CF screen-positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID) in other parts of the world.2 Many people with CRMS/CFSPID are healthy, but a small proportion (<10%) will be reclassified as CF because of an updated annotation of their CFTR variants as CF-causing or an increase in sweat chloride concentration (sweat [Cl−]) to ≥60 mmol/L(2). Approximately 10% will also develop clinical features that are concerning for CF (eg, pulmonary disease, Pseudomonas aeruginosa [Pa] in a respiratory culture).2

In 2009, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) convened an expert panel to develop consensus recommendations for the management of infants with CRMS.3 There have been multiple studies of CRMS/CFSPID outcomes and genetics2,4 since then; thus, a diverse committee of CF providers and parents of people with CRMS/CFSPID was assembled in 2021 to develop an up-to-date, evidence-based guideline for the management and care of people with CRMS/CFSPID.

This guideline is intended to be used by both CF specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) who care for people with CRMS/CFSPID and their families. It should supplement the standard care provided in primary care. The guideline will not address how CRMS/CFSPID is diagnosed, nor the criteria for reclassifying people with CRMS/CFSPID as people with CF (pwCF) because these recommendations already exist;2,5 however, it will address genetic testing to better refine the diagnosis. The European Cystic Fibrosis Society (ECFS) recently published a consensus guidance document concerning the management of children with CRMS/CFSPID.6 The current guideline is evidence-based and is intended to complement the ECFS paper.

CFF intends for this guideline to summarize data and provide reasonable clinical recommendations to clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders. The application of these recommendations should not be mandated. Care decisions regarding individual patients should be made by using a combination of these recommendations, an associated benefit–risk assessment of the treatment options, the patient’s individual and unique circumstances, and the goals and preferences of the patients and families that the team serves as a part of shared decision-making (SDM) between the patient and clinician.

METHODS

CFF sponsored the creation of the committee. The committee defined people with CRMS/CFSPID as people with an abnormal CF NBS result and (1) a sweat [Cl−] of <30 mmol/l (normal) and 2 CFTR variants, at least 1 of which with unclear phenotypic consequences, or (2) sweat [Cl−] of ≥30 to 59 mmol/L (intermediate value) and 1 or no CF-causing variants.2 An online survey was sent to CF care centers (CFCC) and the families of people with CRMS/CFSPID to identify high-priority issues for both groups. Based on survey results, input from the committee, and areas of further research identified in previous guidelines, 24 questions were written in patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) format.7 A systematic review was performed by using PubMed and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Literature review and evidence grading were performed by 4 working groups: genetic testing, monitoring, treatment, and psychosocial and communication issues. The groups generated recommendations that were graded by using the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) definitions (Table 1).8 The committee adhered to the USPSTF Procedure Manual9 in generating and reviewing 31 specific recommendations. Statements that received ≥80% consensus among the committee were approved, resulting in 30 final recommendations (Table 2) and 1 non-consensus statement (Table 3). Details of the committee selection, PICO framework, search terms, and recommendation statements are available in the Supplemental Information and Supplementary Table 5.

TABLE 1

USPSTF Guideline Recommendations8

GradeDefinitionSuggestions for Practice
AThe USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is substantial.Offer or provide this service.
BThe USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.Offer or provide this service.
CThe USPSTF recommends selectively offering or providing this service to individual patients based on professional judgment and patient preferences. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small.Offer or provide this service for selected patients, depending on individual circumstances.
DThe USPSTF recommends against the service. There is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits.Discourage the use of this service.
IThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the service. Evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.Read the clinical considerations section of the USPSTF Recommendation Statement. If the service is offered, patients should understand the uncertainty about the balance of benefits and harms.
TABLE 2

Consensus Recommendation Statements: 30 Statements That Made Consensus

StatementGradeCertaintyPercentage Agreement
Genetics
  1The CFF recommends that people with CRMS/CFSPID who have <2 disease-causing variants identified by NBS, should undergo sequencing of the coding and flanking regions and del/dup analysis of the coding and exon flanking regions of CFTR.BModerate100%
  2The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID selectively offering full-gene CFTR sequencing including intronic regions when the CFTR genotype remains incomplete after coding and flanking region sequencing and del/dup.CLow100%
  3The CFF recommends CFTR genetic evaluation for parents of people with CRMS/CFSPID when phasing of the CFTR variants (ie, in cis or trans) would inform the diagnostic status of the individual by confirming the inheritance pattern.AHigh100%
  4The CFF recommends offering CFTR genetic evaluation for siblings of people with CRMS/CFSPID.BModerate100%
  5The CFF recommends for families of people with CRMS/CFSPID that HCPs providing genetic counseling should have training and/or clinical expertise in CF and genetics. A licensed or certified GC should be accessible to families of people with CRMS/CFSPID for further support, including discussions regarding future reproductive decision-making.BModerate96.2%
Monitoring
  6The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID to receive at least annual follow-up by a CF clinician and nurse, with an initial assessment to include social work and/or MHC and/or genetic counseling provider. Continued follow-up by social work, MHC and genetic counseling should be part of the care of CRMS/CFSPID, depending on the needs of that individual and family.BModerate96.2%
  7The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID repeating sweat chloride testing at 6 months of life and annually at least until age 8 y.BModerate100%
  8The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID selectively offering cystic fibrosis respiratory cultures at each visit (at least until age 8 y) and as clinically indicated for respiratory symptoms.CModerate96.2%
  9The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID that measurement of FE be provided at the initial assessment. Further testing of FE can be provided when clinically appropriate.BHigh100%
  10The CFF recommends against routine laboratory evaluations, including fat-soluble vitamin testing, liver function testing, glucose monitoring, and blood counts for people with CRMS/CFSPID.DModerate100%
  11The CFF recommends against routine PFT (ie, spirometry, multiple breath washout) for people with CRMS/CFSPID.DModerate88.5%
  12The CFF recommends against routine chest radiographs for people with CRMS/CFSPID.DModerate92.3%
Treatment
  13The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID implementation of standard CF IPC guidelines in health care settings and situations in which there is a high likelihood of being in close contact with multiple pwCF or CRMS/CFSPIDBModerate92.3%
  14The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID selectively offering inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of Pa based on a positive respiratory culture.CLow96.2%
  15The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID and unexplained prolonged cough (>2 wk) selectively offering the use of oral antibiotics.CLow96.2%
  16The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID and adequate growth that nutritional management be provided under the direction of the PCP.BHigh100%
  17The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID and a downward trajectory of wt for age percentile or z-score (eg, crossing percentiles) that screening and evaluation be provided by a dietitian with experience in the management of CRMS/CFSPID and CF.BHigh100%
  18The CFF recommends against salt supplementation for people with CRMS/CFSPID.DModerate100%
  19The CFF recommends against the use of fat-soluble vitamins for people with CRMS/CFSPID.DModerate100%
  20The CFF recommends against the routine use of airway clearance for people with CRMS/CFSPID.DLow100%
  21The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID and experiencing new respiratory symptoms, selectively offering the use of airway clearance.CLow100%
  22The CRMS/CFSPID guidelines committee recommends against the use of CFTR modulators for people with CRMS/CFSPID.DModerate94.4%
  23The CFF recommends that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of medications usually used to treat CF respiratory symptoms for people with CRMS/CFSPIDI80.8%
Psychosocial/communication
  24The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID that HCPs assess and consider SDOH that can influence the understanding and psychological impact of a CRMS/CFSPID diagnosis and tailor communications appropriately.BModerate100%
  25The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID that HCPs tailor communication about CFTR variants based on SDM to minimize psychological, cognitive, and other barriers to processing and understanding genetic information.BHigh100%
  26The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID that clear, concise, consistent, and timely information about the uncertainty related to the CRMS/CFSPID diagnosis is provided using family-centered communication strategies.BModerate96.2%
  27The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID and their families that gradual, clear, and consistent verbal and written developmentally appropriate education about CRMS/CFSPID is provided at diagnosis, at follow-up visits and at the time of reproductive decision-making.BModerate100%
  28The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID that the PCP and other HCPs involved in the care of individuals with CRMS/CFSPID receive accurate and up-to-date education about CRMS/CFSPID, its management, and their state’s NBS program.BModerate96.2%
  29The CFF recommends for at least 1 primary caregiver of people with CRMS/CFSPID offering screening for depression and anxiety annually.BModerate96.2%
  30The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID age 12 y and older still being followed by CF care center that screening for depression and anxiety be provided annually.BModerate96.2%
TABLE 3

Non-Consensus Recommendation Statement: 1 Statement That Did Not Make Consensus

PICOStatementGradeCertaintyPercentage Agreement
Should individuals with CRMS/CFSPID have chest CT imaging?Consensus was not achieved on the statement recommending selectively offering chest CT scans to people with CRMS/CFSPIDCLow74.1%

RECOMMENDATIONS

Genetic Testing

Additional CFTR Genetic Testing

  • 1

    The CFF recommends that people with CRMS/CFSPID who have <2 disease-causing variants identified by NBS should undergo sequencing of the coding and flanking regions and deletion/duplication (del/dup) analysis of the coding and exon flanking regions of CFTR (Grade B).

Establishing the CFTR genotype of people with CRMS/CFSPID is important for diagnosis, monitoring, and genetic counseling and, should reclassification to CF occur, may also be useful for the approval of CFTR modulators. Genotyping requires a step-wise approach that is dependent on the state’s NBS algorithm. A glossary of genetic terms is available in Supplemental Table 6. Further genetic analysis is not necessary when 2 CFTR variants identified by NBS are confirmed to be in trans (1 inherited from each parent). However, sequencing of the coding and flanking intronic regions of CFTR, with del/dup analysis to evaluate for large structural variants, such as exon deletions, is useful in the diagnostic workup.10 It should be performed when people with CRMS/CFSPID have only 1 or no identified disease-causing CFTR variants from NBS.

Variant panels commonly used in NBS are typically limited to well-established CF-causing variants and may not identify variants of varying clinical consequence (VVCCs).1,11 The identification of VVCCs may inform the future risk of the development of symptoms related to CFTR dysfunction and refine the reproductive risks of parents and other family members.12 Studies of people with CRMS/CFSPID who have 1 variant identified by NBS panel (often F508del [c.1521_1523del; p.Phe508del]) have revealed that sequencing identified a second variant in 31% to 90% of cases13–17 supporting our recommendation to perform further CFTR variant testing in these infants. Regularly monitoring databases such as CFTR2 (www.cftr2.org) and ClinVar (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/) can be helpful to stay updated on the annotation status of CFTR variants.

  • 2

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, selectively offering full-gene CFTR sequencing including intronic regions when the CFTR genotype remains incomplete after coding and flanking region sequencing and del/dup (Grade C).

CFTR sequencing that includes all intronic regions has identified putatively causal variants among individuals with CF, CFTR-related disorders, and positive CF NBS results.18–23 Tests that include many flanking nucleotides and several deep intronic variants are fairly comprehensive; additional testing of all other intronic regions may offer little additional value or sensitivity. Full intronic sequencing should be selectively performed in people with CRMS/CFSPID who demonstrate evidence of potential CFTR dysfunction (eg, sweat [Cl−] of 30–59 mmol/L), or individuals for whom the clinical suspicion of CF development is high and who possess only 1 previously identified causal variant after full sequence and del/dup is provided (see Supplemental Information for further discussion). Availability of full CFTR sequencing is currently limited; this service may become more widely available in the future.

CFTR Testing in Family Members

  • 3

    The CFF recommends CFTR genetic evaluation for parents of people with CRMS/CFSPID when phasing the CFTR variants (ie, in cis or trans) would inform the diagnostic status of the individual by confirming the inheritance pattern (Grade A).

  • 4

    The CFF recommends offering CFTR genetic evaluation for siblings of people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade B).

For people with CRMS/CFSPID who have 2 identified CFTR variants, determining if the variants reside within the same copy (in cis) or different copies (in trans) of CFTR is achieved through the genetic testing of at least 1 first-degree relative, which is referred to as “phasing.” CFTR variants in cis can lead to diagnosis of CF carrier instead of CRMS/CFSPID,21,24 which bears health and reproductive implications for the individual and family members.

Evaluating the siblings of people with CRMS/CFSPID can identify at-risk individuals who may also benefit from clinical monitoring and follow-up.25,26 This assessment should be offered to families and promotes SDM with emphasis on the risks and benefits to the individual sibling.6 In many instances, this may be delayed until childbearing age and at a time the sibling may also share in the decision-making regarding the value of this genetic information.

Genetic Counseling

  • 5

    The CFF recommends, for families of people with CRMS/CFSPID, that health care professionals (HCPs) providing genetic counseling should have training or clinical expertise in CF and genetics. A licensed or certified genetic counselor (GC) should be accessible to families of people with CRMS/CFSPID for further support, including discussions regarding future reproductive decision-making (Grade B).

Published recommendations affirm that genetic counseling should be offered to the families of people with CRMS/CFSPID.6,27,28 The genetic counseling provider, whether they are a licensed or certified GC or a CF clinician, should have a high level of expertise in both CF genetics and CRMS/CFSPID.27 Some families feel more comfortable discussing these topics with providers outside the CFCC.29,30 Having access to a trained GC to discuss genetic findings and complement team members in providing psychosocial support promotes understanding3,6 and strengthens long-term retention of genetic knowledge.31 Genetic counseling at regular intervals throughout the lifespan allows for timely, accurate, supportive, and non-directive information on recurrence risk and reproductive options.29

Monitoring

Frequency of Follow-Up

  • 6

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, at least annual follow-up by a CF clinician and nurse, with an initial assessment to include a social worker, a mental health coordinator (MHC), and/or a genetic counseling provider. Continued follow-up by a social worker, MHC, and/or genetic counselor should be part of the care of CRMS/CFSPID, depending on the needs of that individual and family (Grade B).

The primary goal of monitoring people with CRMS/CFSPID is to detect those individuals who may be reclassified as CF and would benefit from care at a CFCC. Equally important is avoiding the overmedicalization of otherwise healthy individuals, which involves its own set of adverse consequences. Families should be informed about possible outcomes for people with CRMS/CFSPID and plans for future monitoring visits. Communication with PCPs is essential and should highlight reasons for more frequent reassessment by CFCC (eg, persistent cough, constipation, or inadequate weight gain). Routine follow-up should be provided by clinicians with expertise in CF and CFTR genetics to reexamine CFTR variants (eg, periodic assessment of the CFTR2 database) and changes in clinical status. Because most people with CRMS/CFSPID are healthy, evaluation by an entire multidisciplinary team is often unnecessary.

Sweat Chloride Testing (SCT)

  • 7

    The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID to repeat SCT at 6 months of life and annually, at least until age 8 years (Grade B).

SCT is the mainstay for diagnosing CF and part of the diagnostic criteria for CRMS/CFSPID. One reason for reclassification of CRMS/CFSPID to CF is a sweat [Cl−] of >60 mmol/L. The authors of multiple studies have reported sweat [Cl−] elevation above this level after an initial sweat [Cl−] of <60 mmol/L during the newborn period.16,30,32–39 However, evidence is lacking regarding changes in sweat [Cl−] after 8 years of age, and SDM with parents should be used to determine if SCT should continue past this age. Careful consideration for continued SCT may be given to certain populations, including (1) individuals with initial sweat [Cl−] of 40 to 59 mmol/L because they are up to 10 times more likely to have a sweat [Cl−] elevation of >59 mmol/L in later childhood33,40 and (2) individuals with sweat [Cl−] increasing at a high rate over time (>5 mmol/L per year).16

Respiratory Cultures

  • 8

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, selectively offering CF respiratory cultures at each visit (at least until age 8 years) and as clinically indicated for respiratory symptoms (Grade C).

Airway infection with CF-associated microorganisms, specifically Pa, is considered a phenotypic feature supporting a CF diagnosis. Compared with the general population, people with CRMS/CFSPID exhibit a higher prevalence of Pa (10.7% to 78.6%), Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (4.9% to 10%), and Staphylococcus aureus (40% to 85%) in respiratory cultures.30,41,42 Some studies have revealed that people with CRMS/CFSPID who reclassify to CF more likely have a positive culture result for Pa than those who do not reclassify (33% vs 10%), whereas other reports have revealed no difference.30,35 However, a positive culture result alone does not warrant reclassification. Some families and physicians may not want to expose the individual to trauma associated with cultures. Respiratory culture data from people with CRMS/CFSPID >8 years of age are currently lacking. If persistent respiratory symptoms are present, obtaining respiratory cultures in people with CRMS/CFSPID may be warranted. Thus, the evidence supports that cultures obtained via throat swab or sputum should be selectively offered after SDM with the family.

Laboratory Testing

  • 9

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, that measurement of fecal elastase (FE) should be performed at the initial assessment. Further testing of FE can be provided when clinically appropriate (Grade B).

  • 10

    The CFF recommends against routine laboratory evaluations, including fat-soluble vitamin testing, liver function testing, glucose monitoring, and blood counts for people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade D).

Measuring FE at the initial assessment is important to evaluate for exocrine pancreatic function because pancreatic insufficiency is a clinical feature of CF. FE levels can fluctuate in the first year of life; therefore, a single abnormal FE level should be interpreted cautiously, and repeat testing may be warranted43 if symptoms of steatorrhea or failure to thrive develop. Most people with CRMS/CFSPID exhibit normal growth and nutrition and are pancreatic sufficient; thus, the presence of pancreatic insufficiency would strongly support reclassification to CF.35,44,45

There is no evidence that laboratory results, such as electrolyte concentrations or liver function tests, are abnormal in people with CRMS/CFSPID.35 Excessive testing leads to overmedicalization and increased cost of care. Therefore, laboratory tests should only be considered when clinically indicated.

Pulmonary Function Testing

  • 11

    The CFF recommends against routine pulmonary function testing (PFT; ie, spirometry, multiple-breath washout) for people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade D).

Spirometry and multiple-breath washout are normal in people with CRMS/CFSPID4,33,35 and do not affect reclassification to CF. PFTs should be considered if clinical concern for respiratory disease arises, and if abnormal, may support reclassification to CF.

Radiographic Imaging

  • 12

    The CFF recommends against routine chest radiographs for people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade D).

Chest imaging is normal in people with CRMS/CFSPID within the first years of life35 and does not inform reclassification to CF. Chest radiographs should be considered if clinical concerns arise.

Treatment

Infection Prevention and Control

  • 13

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, the implementation of standard CF infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines in health care settings and situations in which there is a high likelihood of being in close contact with multiple pwCF or people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade B).

The acquisition of Pa may guide reclassification to CF, and there is a risk that exposure to pathogens commonly associated with CF may negatively impact the individual.46 This risk is most substantial in the health care setting in which close contact could occur among multiple pwCF or people with CRMS/CFSPID. IPC guidelines have been adopted by CF programs with minimal negative impact.47 The implementation of IPC guidelines in non-health care settings, such as schools, may have significant negative psychological effects that outweigh potential benefits and are not recommended.

Infectious Disease Interventions

  • 14

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, selectively offering inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of Pa based on a positive respiratory culture (Grade C).

  • 15

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID and an unexplained prolonged cough (>2 weeks), selectively offering the use of oral antibiotics (Grade C).

A higher prevalence of Pa is reported in respiratory cultures from people with CRMS/CFSPID compared with those collected from children without CF,2,4,41,42 and treatment to eradicate incident Pa infection is recommended for pwCF.48 However, the clinical impact of Pa in respiratory cultures from people with CRMS/CFSPID is unclear. Pa may clear spontaneously, (ie, independent of whether treatment is provided),49 calling into question the value of Pa eradication therapy. The committee recommends selectively offering this treatment after a SDM process incorporating the potential benefits, risks, and treatment burden of inhaled antibiotic therapy in people with CRMS/CFSPID with positive respiratory culture for Pa. If the decision is to treat, then follow-up cultures are warranted to ensure Pa clearance.

Precedent is established regarding use of oral antibiotics for prolonged cough for individuals with respiratory conditions other than CF, including tracheobronchomalacia, protracted bacterial bronchitis, non-CF bronchiectasis and neuromuscular disease.50–54 The committee discussed this consideration while weighing the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy. The use of any antibiotic for eradication or treatment may depend on clinical status of the individual, and the risks and benefits of treatment burden should be assessed for each family. For people with CRMS/CFSPID with a cough lasting >2 weeks, other etiologies of persistent cough, such as asthma, should be considered.

Nutritional Interventions

  • 16

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID with adequate growth, that nutritional management be provided under the direction of the PCP (Grade B).

  • 17

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID with a downward trajectory of weight-for-age percentile or z-score (eg, crossing percentiles), that screening and evaluation be provided by a dietitian with experience in the management of CRMS/CFSPID and CF (Grade B).

  • 18

    The CFF recommends against salt supplementation for people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade D).

  • 19

    The CFF recommends against the use of fat-soluble vitamins for people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade D).

No evidence exists to support the use of supplemental nutrition, caloric modifications, or CF-specific diets for people with CRMS/CFSPID who are exhibiting normal growth.55 A downward growth trajectory, as measured by weight-for-age percentile or weight z-score, may be a sign of reclassification to CF. Children who demonstrate this pattern should undergo nutritional screening and appropriate intervention by dietitians with experience in CRMS/CFSPID and CF. Given that people with CRMS/CFSPID have intermediate or normal sweat [Cl−], excessive salt loss is not expected, and potentially harmful consequences could be conferred by a high-salt diet.56,57 No evidence suggests the need for supplementing fat-soluble vitamins to people with CRMS/CFSPID35 because deficits in these vitamins have not been observed, and routine laboratory tests are not being monitored.

Pulmonary Interventions

  • 20

    The CFF recommends against the routine use of airway clearance therapy (ACT) for people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade D).

  • 21

    The CFF recommends for people with CRMS/CFSPID experiencing new respiratory symptoms selectively offering the use of ACT (Grade C).

  • 22

    The CRMS/CFSPID guideline committee recommends against the use of CFTR modulators for people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade D).

  • 23

    The CFF has determined that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of medications usually used to treat CF respiratory symptoms for people with CRMS/CFSPID (Grade I).

Routine ACT and its effects on outcomes, such as bronchiectasis, are unclear for people with CRMS/CFSPID; hence, daily use is not recommended. ACT has been recommended for the management of acute respiratory symptoms for pediatric patients with other pulmonary conditions58,59; thus, for people with CRMS/CFSPID and new respiratory symptoms, ACT may be considered. Initiation should be discussed with the family because ACT may add a significant burden. The use of cost-effective methods (such as manual percussion) should be attempted.

No studies have been reported in which the authors investigated the outcomes of CFTR modulator therapies among people with CRMS/CFSPID, and potential adverse effects are associated with these medications.60–62 If people with CRMS/CFSPID develop signs and symptoms warranting the use of CFTR modulators, reclassification to CF may be justified.

Medications that are commonly used for CF lung disease,63,64 (ie, dornase alfa, hypertonic saline, and low-dose azithromycin) have not been evaluated in people with CRMS/CFSPID. The potential benefits of these medications for people with CRMS/CFSPID are unclear because the degree of CFTR dysfunction in CRMS/CFSPID may not necessarily result in significant changes in airway surface liquid. Weighed against the risks of medical complexity, treatment burden, and cost, there is insufficient evidence to either recommend for or against use of these medications. For people with CRMS/CFSPID with chronic respiratory symptoms that would require consideration of therapy, the reassessment of CF is warranted.

Communication and Psychosocial Issues

Communication With Families

  • 24

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, that HCPs assess and consider social determinants of health (SDOH) that can influence the understanding and psychological impact of a CRMS/CFSPID diagnosis and tailor communications appropriately (Grade B).

  • 25

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, that HCP tailor communication about CFTR variants based on SDM to minimize psychological, cognitive, and other barriers to processing and understanding genetic information (Grade B).

  • 26

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, that clear, concise, consistent, and timely information about the uncertainty related to the CRMS/CFSPID diagnosis is provided using family-centered communication strategies (Grade B).

  • 27

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID and their families, that gradual, clear, and consistent, verbal and written, developmentally appropriate education about CRMS/CFSPID is provided at diagnosis, at follow-up visits, and at the time of reproductive decision-making (Grade B).

The psychological impact of the uncertainty associated with CRMS/CFSPD is challenging for parents and highlights the need for consistent and clear communication between families, patients, and HCP.65,66 SDOH can influence a persons’ understanding of a diagnosis based on previous knowledge, emotional state, genetic and health literacy, and perceptions of test results.66–69 Screening for SDOH will identify social needs for which CFCC can provide links to further services. Parental learning preferences should be considered. Qualified medical language interpreters should be involved unless the provider is certified as a proficient interpreter in the primary language of the people with CRMS/CFSPID and their caregivers.

Perceived lack of knowledge of the person communicating NBS results has been linked to parental distress.70 Clear, concise, and consistent information with plans for future follow-up is necessary for parents managing the uncertainty associated with the diagnosis of CRMS/CFSPID.2,65 Accurate information, with reassurance and without conjecture, is critical for moderating parental response to this diagnosis.66,71 Educational tools have been developed to assist HCP when communicating information to families the uncertainty of other diagnoses.70 Additional information on this topic is available in the Supplemental Information.

Communication With Primary Care

  • 28

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID, that the PCPs and other HCPs involved in the care of individuals with CRMS/CFSPID receive accurate and up-to-date education about CRMS/CFSPID, its management, and the state’s NBS program (Grade B).

When communicating with parents and HCPs, it is important to provide information regarding further symptoms that may arise and when to refer to a CFCC. Because NBS algorithms vary by state,1 CFCCs should serve as a resource with current information for PCPs to help educate and clarify any CFTR results, SCT, or other evaluations that pertain to CRMS/CFSPID.3,6

Screening for Depression and Anxiety

  • 29

    The CFF recommends that at least 1 primary caregiver of people with CRMS/CFSPID be offered screening for depression and anxiety annually (Grade B).

  • 30

    The CFF recommends, for people with CRMS/CFSPID aged 12 years and older still being followed by CFCC, that screening for depression and anxiety be provided annually (Grade B).

The International Committee on Mental Health in Cystic Fibrosis72 and the USPSTF screening guidelines73,74 recommend annual screening for depression and anxiety in people aged 12 years and older. To be consistent with guidelines, the committee recommends utilizing the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 forms. A team member with expertise and training in mental health should be identified to implement screening, follow-up, and referral.72 Although there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening for anxiety and depression in people with CRMS/CFSPID aged 7 to 11 years, this population should be clinically evaluated for these problems when significant symptoms or behavioral concerns are reported or if caregiver depression or anxiety scores are elevated.

Mothers of people with CRMS/CFSPID exhibit increased rates of anxiety, depression, and postpartum depression that are comparable to rates detected among mothers of pwCF.75 News of the CRMS/CFSPID designation may create a state of cognitive uncertainty regarding the nature of the diagnosis and prognosis. This mental state contributes to clinically significant distress for parents and caregivers76–78 like that experienced by parents of pwCF.66 Discussions should be family-centered and may include asking about the caregiver’s emotional and mental health concerns and SDOH, racism, poverty, and relational health.73,79,80

No Consensus

The committee was unable to reach a consensus of 80%, with 20 voting for recommendation (74%) and 7 voting against a recommendation for selectively offering chest computed tomography (CT) scans. There are few reports of chest CT imaging in people with CRMS/CFSPID,35,49,81,82 and abnormal findings are rare. Many members of the committee felt that chest CTs are not routinely recommended for pwCF and should not be recommended for people with CRMS/CFSPID.

LIMITATIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Although numerous studies of CRMS/CFSPID have been published since 2009, most encompass single-center analyses with relatively small cohorts. The CFF Patient Registry (CFFPR) contains many people with CRMS/CFSPID and has been used to study CRMS outcomes. However, there is no requirement for inclusion in the CFFPR, and many people with CRMS/CFSPID are not represented in this database. No randomized clinical trials of people with CRMS/CFSPID have been reported, and it is unlikely that such future studies will be performed, all of which affect the strength of the present recommendations. Enrolling more people with CRMS/CFSPID into CFFPR will be a primary way to develop larger multicenter cohort studies and better guide management.

Genetic testing technology is continually advancing. Tests with limited availability now (eg, compete sequencing of the intronic regions of CFTR) may become more widely available in the future. Establishing the disease liability of VVCCs and variants of uncertain significance represents an unmet need that may help assess the risk of reclassifying CRMS/CFSPID to CF, as well as guide the selection of CFTR variants in NBS algorithms. Knowledge of state NBS algorithms and access to further genetic testing will be essential because these platforms continue to vary across the United States.1 People with CFTR-related disorder have CFTR and SCT results similar to people with CRMS/CFSPID,83 but the likelihood of people with CRMS/CFSPID developing into CFTR-related disorder is currently unknown. Pursuing this area of research is also an important area for future research.

Working closely with PCPs is a mainstay of care for people with CRMS/CFSPID. Table 4 is a suggestion for the continued monitoring and care of people with CRMS/CFSPID and can be employed at both specialty care and primary care. Determining an appropriate time to discharge from care at a specialized center will require SDM with the people with CRMS/CFSPID, family, specialty providers and PCPs. Guidance regarding when to refer back to specialty clinics (eg, change in respiratory symptoms) needs to be developed.

TABLE 4

Monitoring and Care for the Person With CRMS/CFSPID

Age at VisitDay of First Sweat Test6 mo1–8 y9–11 ya12 y and oldera
Intervention
Discuss diagnosisPPAAA
Sweat testPPACC
FEPCCCC
Cystic fibrosis culture—CCCC
Assessment of variant classification in national database (eg, CFTR2)PPAAA
Sequencing (if not done at birth)CCCCC
Del/dup testingCCCCC
Infection controlPPAAA
CF patient registry consent—PCCC
Genetic counselingPPCCC
Mental health screening of parentsPPAAA
Mental health screening of patient——CCA

A, annually perform; C, consider; P, perform. —, not needed at this age.

a

If still being followed at CFCC.

We present this evidence-based guideline for the management of CRMS. Most of the recommendations were grade C because of the limited data that are currently available. As more people with CRMS/CFSPID are followed for longer periods of time, reassessment of these recommendations will be required. Additionally, research is needed to assess clinical benefits of treating pulmonary symptoms with medications commonly used for CF lung disease, antibiotic therapy for Pa in respiratory cultures, and the use of PFTs or chest imaging for monitoring development of lung disease in people with CRMS/CFSPID.

Supplementary Material

FUNDING:

This guideline was supported by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The sponsor assisted with the application of the committee members and resources for weekly and monthly virtual meetings of the committee members.

ABBREVIATIONS

ACT

airway clearance therapy

CF

cystic fibrosis

CFCC

cystic fibrosis care centers

CFF

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

CFFPR

CFF Patient Registry

CFSPID

cystic fibrosis screen-positive, inconclusive diagnosis

CFTR

cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator

CRMS

CFTR-related metabolic syndrome

CT

computed tomography

del/dup

deletion/duplication

ECFS

European Cystic Fibrosis Society

FE

fecal elastase

GC

genetic counselor

HCP

health care professional

IPC

infection prevention and control

MHC

mental health coordinator

NBS

newborn screening

Pa

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

PCP

primary care provider

PFT

pulmonary function testing

PICO

patient, intervention, comparison, outcome

pwCF

people with cystic fibrosis

SDM

shared decision-making

SDOH

social determinants of health

sweat [Cl−]

sweat chloride concentration

USPSTF

US Preventive Services Task Force

VVCCs

variants of varying clinical consequence

Footnotes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

REFERENCES

1. Rehani MR, Marcus MS, Harris AB, et al. Variation in cystic fibrosis newborn screening algorithms in the United States. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2023;58(3):927–933 2. Ren CL, Borowitz DS, Gonska T, et al. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome and cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis. J Pediatr. 2017;181S:S45–S51.e41 3. Borowitz D, Parad RB, Sharp JK, et al. ; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation practice guidelines for the management of infants with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator–related metabolic syndrome during the first two years of life and beyond. J Pediatr. 2009;155(6 Suppl):S106–S116 4. Munck A. Inconclusive diagnosis after newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2020;6(1):19. 5. Farrell PM, White TB, Ren CL, et al. Diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: consensus guidelines from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. J Pediatr. 2017;181S:S4–S15.e11 6. Barben J, Castellani C, Munck A, et al. ; European CF Society Neonatal Screening Working Group (ECFS NSWG). Updated guidance on the management of children with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome/cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CRMS/CFSPID). J Cyst Fibros. 2021;20(5):810–819 7. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123(3):A12–A138. UPSTF. Grade definitions. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/methods-and-processes/grade-definitions/. Accessed June 26, 20239. UPSTF. Procedure manual. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/methods-and-processes/procedure-manual. Accessed February 6, 202410. Deignan JL, Astbury C, Cutting GR, et al. ; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. CFTR variant testing: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2020;22(8):1288–1295 11. McGarry ME, Ren CL, Wu R, et al. Detection of disease-causing CFTR variants in state newborn screening programs. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2023;58(2):465–474 12. Bergougnoux A, Lopez M, Girodon E. The role of extended CFTR gene sequencing in newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2020;6(1):23. 13. van der Ploeg CP, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Vernooij-van Langen AM, et al. ; CHOPIN Study Group. Cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis determined with real-life data. J Cyst Fibros. 2015;14(2):194–202 14. Narzi L, Ferraguti G, Stamato A, et al. Does cystic fibrosis neonatal screening detect atypical CF forms? Extended genetic characterization and 4-year clinical follow-up. Clin Genet. 2007;72(1):39–46 15. Dankert-Roelse JE, Bouva MJ, Jakobs BS, et al. Newborn blood spot screening for cystic fibrosis with a four-step screening strategy in the Netherlands. J Cyst Fibros. 2019;18(1):54–63 16. Ginsburg D, Wee CP, Reyes MC, et al. When CFSPID becomes CF. J Cyst Fibros. 2022;21(1):e23–e27 17. Soultan ZN, Foster MM, Newman NB, Anbar RD. Sweat chloride testing in infants identified as heterozygote carriers by newborn screening. J Pediatr. 2008;153(6):857–859 18. Bergougnoux A, Délétang K, Pommier A, et al. Functional characterization and phenotypic spectrum of three recurrent disease-causing deep intronic variants of the CFTR gene. J Cyst Fibros. 2019;18(4):468–475 19. Alibakhshi R, Kianishirazi R, Cassiman JJ, et al. Analysis of the CFTR gene in Iranian cystic fibrosis patients: identification of eight novel mutations. J Cyst Fibros. 2008;7(2):102–109 20. Keiles S, Kammesheidt A. Identification of CFTR, PRSS1, and SPINK1 mutations in 381 patients with pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2006;33(3):221–227 21. Kharrazi M, Yang J, Bishop T, et al. ; California Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening Consortium. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in California. Pediatrics. 2015;136(6):1062–1072 22. Bozdogan ST, Mujde C, Boga I, et al. Current status of genetic diagnosis laboratories and frequency of genetic variants associated with cystic fibrosis through a newborn-screening program in Turkey. Genes (Basel). 2021;12(2):206. 23. Bienvenu T, Nguyen-Khoa T. Current and future diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: Performance and limitations. Arch Pediatr. 2020;27(Suppl 1):eS19–eS24 24. Bergougnoux A, Boureau-Wirth A, Rouzier C, et al. A false positive newborn screening result due to a complex allele carrying two frequent CF-causing variants. J Cyst Fibros. 2016;15(3):309–512 25. Munck A, Houssin E, Roussey M. The importance of sweat testing for older siblings of patients with cystic fibrosis identified by newborn screening. J Pediatr. 2009;155(6):928–950.e1 26. Williams SN, Nussbaum E, Chin TW, et al. Diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in the kindred of an infant with CFTR-related metabolic syndrome: importance of follow-up that includes monitoring sweat chloride concentrations over time. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2014;49(3):E103–E108 27. Langfelder-Schwind E, Raraigh KS, Parad RB; CF Newborn Screening Genetic Counseling Workgroup. Genetic counseling access for parents of newborns who screen positive for cystic fibrosis: consensus guidelines. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2022;57(4):894–902 28. Comeau AM, Accurso FJ, White TB, et al. ; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Guidelines for implementation of cystic fibrosis newborn screening programs: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation workshop report. Pediatrics. 2007;119(2):e495–e518 29. Foil KE, Powers A, Raraigh KS, et al. The increasing challenge of genetic counseling for cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2019;18(2):167–174 30. Ooi CY, Castellani C, Keenan K, et al. Inconclusive diagnosis of cystic fibrosis after newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2015;135(6):e1377–e1385 31. Cavanagh L, Compton CJ, Tluczek A, et al. Long-term evaluation of genetic counseling following false-positive newborn screen for cystic fibrosis. J Genet Couns. 2010;19(2):199–210 32. Salinas DB, Sosnay PR, Azen C, et al. Benign and deleterious cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator mutations identified by sequencing in positive cystic fibrosis newborn screen children from California. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155624. 33. Gonska T, Keenan K, Au J, et al. Outcomes of cystic fibrosis screening-positive infants with inconclusive diagnosis at school age. Pediatrics. 2021;148(6):148.34. Terlizzi V, Claut L, Colombo C, et al. Outcomes of early repeat sweat testing in infants with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome/CF screen-positive, inconclusive diagnosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56(12):5785–579135. Munck A, Bourmaud A, Bellon G, et al. ; DPAM Study Group. Phenotype of children with inconclusive cystic fibrosis diagnosis after newborn screening. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020;55(4):918–928 36. Terlizzi V, Mergni G, Buzzetti R, et al. Cystic fibrosis screen positive inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID): experience in Tuscany, Italy. J Cyst Fibros. 2019;18(4):484–490 37. Terlizzi V, Claut L, Tosco A, et al. A survey of the prevalence, management and outcome of infants with an inconclusive diagnosis following newborn bloodspot screening for cystic fibrosis (CRMS/CFSPID) in six Italian centres. J Cyst Fibros. 2021;20(5):828–854 38. Tosco A, Castaldo A, Colombo C, et al. Clinical outcomes of a large cohort of individuals with the F508del/5T;TG12 CFTR genotype. J Cyst Fibros. 2022;21(5):850–855 39. Salinas DB, Ginsburg DK, Wee CP, et al. Gradual increase in sweat chloride concentration is associated with a higher risk of CRMS/CFSPID to CF reclassification. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2023;58(4):1074–1084 40. Bauer SE, Lai HJ, McDonald CM, et al. Zinc status and growth in infants and young children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56(12):3768–3776 41. Carlson D, McKeen E, Mitchell M, et al. Oropharyngeal flora in healthy infants: observations and implications for cystic fibrosis care. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44(5):497–502 42. Rosenfeld M, Bernardo-Ocampo C, Emerson J, et al. Prevalence of cystic fibrosis pathogens in the oropharynx of healthy children and implications for cystic fibrosis care. J Cyst Fibros. 2012;11(5):456–457 43. O’Sullivan BP, Baker D, Leung KG, et al. Evolution of pancreatic function during the first year in infants with cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr. 2013; 162(4):808–812.e1 44. Ren CL, Desai H, Platt M, Dixon M. Clinical outcomes in infants with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) related metabolic syndrome. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2011;46(11):1079–1084 45. Ren CL, Fink AK, Petren K, et al. Outcomes of infants with indeterminate diagnosis detected by cystic fibrosis newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2015;135(6):e1386–e1392 46. Saiman L, Siegel JD, LiPuma JJ, et al. ; Cystic Fibrous Foundation; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infection prevention and control guideline for cystic fibrosis: 2013 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(Suppl 1):S1–S6747. Stoudemire W, Jiang X, Zhou JJ, et al. Cystic fibrosis program characteristics associated with adoption of 2013 infection prevention and control recommendations. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47(9):1090–1095 48. Mogayzel PJ Jr, Naureckas ET, Robinson KA, et al. ; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Pulmonary Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation pulmonary guideline. pharmacologic approaches to prevention and eradication of initial Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11(10):1640–1650 49. Dolce D, Claut L, Colombo C, et al. Different management approaches and outcome for infants with an inconclusive diagnosis following newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CRMS/CFSPID) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolation. J Cyst Fibros. 2025;22(1):75–7850. Morice AH, Millqvist E, Bieksiene K, et al. ERS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in adults and children. Eur Respir J. 2020;55(1):1901136. 51. Chang AB, Oppenheimer JJ, Irwin RS; CHEST Expert Cough Panel. Managing chronic cough as a symptom in children and management algorithms: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2020;158(1):303–329 52. Chang AB, Oppenheimer JJ, Weinberger MM, et al. ; CHEST Expert Cough Panel. Management of children with chronic wet cough and protracted bacterial bronchitis: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2017;151(4):884–890 53. McShane PJ, Naureckas ET, Tino G, Strek ME. Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(6):647–656 54. Birnkrant DJ, Bushby K, Bann CM, et al. ; DMD Care Considerations Working Group. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 2: respiratory, cardiac, bone health, and orthopaedic management. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(4):347–361 55. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook, 8th ed. American Academy of Pediatrics; 201956. Messerli FH, Hofstetter L, Syrogiannouli L, et al. Sodium intake, life expectancy, and all-cause mortality. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(21):2103–2112 57. Cook NR, Appel LJ, Whelton PK. Sodium intake and all-cause mortality over 20 years in the trials of hypertension prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(15):1609–1617 58. Finder JD, Birnkrant D, Carl J, et al. ; American Thoracic Society. Respiratory care of the patient with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: ATS consensus statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170(4):456–465 59. Bott J, Blumenthal S, Buxton M, et al. ; British Thoracic Society Physiotherapy Guideline Development Group. Guidelines for the physiotherapy management of the adult, medical, spontaneously breathing patient. Thorax. 2009;64(Suppl 1):i1–i51 60. Bathgate CJ, Muther E, Georgiopoulos AM, et al. Positive and negative impacts of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor: healthcare providers’ observations across US centers. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2023;58(9):2469–2477 61. Dagenais RVE, Su VCH, Quon BS. Real-world safety of CFTR modulators in the treatment of cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;10(1):23. 62. Kapouni N, Moustaki M, Douros K, Loukou I. Efficacy and safety of elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor in the treatment of cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. Children (Basel). 2023;10(3):554. 63. Ong T, Ramsey BW. Cystic fibrosis: a review. JAMA. 2023;329(21):1859–1871 64. Mogayzel PJ Jr, Naureckas ET, Robinson KA, et al. ; Pulmonary Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. Cystic fibrosis pulmonary guidelines. Chronic medications for maintenance of lung health. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187(7):680–689 65. Sinha A, Southern KW. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome/cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CRMS/CFSPID). Breathe (Sheff). 2021;17(3):210088. 66. Johnson F, Southern KW, Ulph F. Psychological impact on parents of an inconclusive diagnosis following newborn bloodspot screening for cystic fibrosis: a qualitative study. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2019;5(2):23. 67. Johnson F, Ulph F, MacLeod R, Southern KW. Receiving results of uncertain clinical relevance from population genetic screening: systematic review & meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30(5):520–531 68. Tluczek A, Ersig AL, Lee S. Psychosocial issues related to newborn screening: a systematic review and synthesis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2022;8(4):53. 69. Tluczek A, Koscik RL, Modaff P, et al. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents’ preferences regarding counseling at the time of infants’ sweat test. J Genet Couns. 2006;15(4):277–291 70. Chudleigh J, Shakespeare L, Holder P, et al. Co-designing improved communication of newborn bloodspot screening results to parents: mixed methods study. J Particip Med. 2022;14(1):e33485. 71. Hayeems RZ, Miller FA, Barg CJ, et al. Psychosocial response to uncertain newborn screening results for cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr. 2017;184:165–171.e1 72. Quittner AL, Abbott J, Georgiopoulos AM, et al. ; International Committee on Mental Health; EPOS Trial Study Group. International Committee on Mental Health in Cystic Fibrosis: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and European Cystic Fibrosis Society consensus statements for screening and treating depression and anxiety. Thorax. 2016;71(1):26–34 73. Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for anxiety in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438–1444 74. Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for depression and suicide risk in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2022;328(15):1534–1542 75. Ginsburg DK, Salinas DB, Cosanella TM, et al. High rates of anxiety detected in mothers of children with inconclusive cystic fibrosis screening results. J Cyst Fibros. 2023;22(3):420–426 76. Tluczek A, Koscik RL, Farrell PM, Rock MJ. Psychosocial risk associated with newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents’ experience while awaiting the sweat-test appointment. Pediatrics. 2005;115(6):1692–1703 77. Santhosh L, Chou CL, Connor DM. Diagnostic uncertainty: from education to communication. Diagnosis (Berl). 2019;6(2):121–126 78. Chudleigh J, Barben J, Ren CL, Southern KW. International approaches to management of CFTR-related metabolic syndrome/cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2022;8(1):5. 79. Siu AL, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for depression in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315(4):380–387 80. Siu AL; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for depression in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20154467. 81. Castaldo A, Cimbalo C, Castaldo RJ, et al. Cystic fibrosis-screening positive inconclusive diagnosis: newborn screening and long-term follow-up permits to early identify patients with CFTR-related disorders. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020; 10(8):570. 82. Hatton A, Bergougnoux A, Zybert K, et al. Reclassifying inconclusive diagnosis after newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Moving forward. J Cyst Fibros. 2022;21(3):448–455 83. Bombieri C, Claustres M, De Boeck K, et al. Recommendations for the classification of diseases as CFTR-related disorders. J Cyst Fibros. 2011;10(Suppl 2):S86–S102

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Rehani MR, Marcus MS, Harris AB, et al. Variation in cystic fibrosis newborn screening algorithms in the United States. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2023;58(3):927–933
  2. Ren CL, Borowitz DS, Gonska T, et al. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome and cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis. J Pediatr. 2017;181S:S45–S51.e41
  3. Borowitz D, Parad RB, Sharp JK, et al. ; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation practice guidelines for the management of infants with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator–related metabolic syndrome during the first two years of life and beyond. J Pediatr. 2009;155(6 Suppl):S106–S116
  4. Munck A. Inconclusive diagnosis after newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2020;6(1):19.
  5. Farrell PM, White TB, Ren CL, et al. Diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: consensus guidelines from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. J Pediatr. 2017;181S:S4–S15.e11
  6. Barben J, Castellani C, Munck A, et al. ; European CF Society Neonatal Screening Working Group (ECFS NSWG). Updated guidance on the management of children with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome/cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CRMS/CFSPID). J Cyst Fibros. 2021;20(5):810–819
  7. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123(3):A12–A13
  8. UPSTF. Grade definitions. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/methods-and-processes/grade-definitions/ . Accessed June 26, 2023
  9. UPSTF. Procedure manual. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/methods-and-processes/procedure-manual . Accessed February 6, 2024
  10. Deignan JL, Astbury C, Cutting GR, et al. ; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. CFTR variant testing: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2020;22(8):1288–1295
  11. McGarry ME, Ren CL, Wu R, et al. Detection of disease-causing CFTR variants in state newborn screening programs. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2023;58(2):465–474
  12. Bergougnoux A, Lopez M, Girodon E. The role of extended CFTR gene sequencing in newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2020;6(1):23.
  13. van der Ploeg CP, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Vernooij-van Langen AM, et al. ; CHOPIN Study Group. Cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis determined with real-life data. J Cyst Fibros. 2015;14(2):194–202
  14. Narzi L, Ferraguti G, Stamato A, et al. Does cystic fibrosis neonatal screening detect atypical CF forms? Extended genetic characterization and 4-year clinical follow-up. Clin Genet. 2007;72(1):39–46
  15. Dankert-Roelse JE, Bouva MJ, Jakobs BS, et al. Newborn blood spot screening for cystic fibrosis with a four-step screening strategy in the Netherlands. J Cyst Fibros. 2019;18(1):54–63
  16. Ginsburg D, Wee CP, Reyes MC, et al. When CFSPID becomes CF. J Cyst Fibros. 2022;21(1):e23–e27
  17. Soultan ZN, Foster MM, Newman NB, Anbar RD. Sweat chloride testing in infants identified as heterozygote carriers by newborn screening. J Pediatr. 2008;153(6):857–859
  18. Bergougnoux A, Délétang K, Pommier A, et al. Functional characterization and phenotypic spectrum of three recurrent disease-causing deep intronic variants of the CFTR gene. J Cyst Fibros. 2019;18(4):468–475
  19. Alibakhshi R, Kianishirazi R, Cassiman JJ, et al. Analysis of the CFTR gene in Iranian cystic fibrosis patients: identification of eight novel mutations. J Cyst Fibros. 2008;7(2):102–109
  20. Keiles S, Kammesheidt A. Identification of CFTR, PRSS1, and SPINK1 mutations in 381 patients with pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2006;33(3):221–227
  21. Kharrazi M, Yang J, Bishop T, et al. ; California Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening Consortium. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in California. Pediatrics. 2015;136(6):1062–1072
  22. Bozdogan ST, Mujde C, Boga I, et al. Current status of genetic diagnosis laboratories and frequency of genetic variants associated with cystic fibrosis through a newborn-screening program in Turkey. Genes (Basel). 2021;12(2):206.
  23. Bienvenu T, Nguyen-Khoa T. Current and future diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: Performance and limitations. Arch Pediatr. 2020;27(Suppl 1):eS19–eS24
  24. Bergougnoux A, Boureau-Wirth A, Rouzier C, et al. A false positive newborn screening result due to a complex allele carrying two frequent CF-causing variants. J Cyst Fibros. 2016;15(3):309–512
  25. Munck A, Houssin E, Roussey M. The importance of sweat testing for older siblings of patients with cystic fibrosis identified by newborn screening. J Pediatr. 2009;155(6):928–950.e1
  26. Williams SN, Nussbaum E, Chin TW, et al. Diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in the kindred of an infant with CFTR-related metabolic syndrome: importance of follow-up that includes monitoring sweat chloride concentrations over time. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2014;49(3):E103–E108
  27. Langfelder-Schwind E, Raraigh KS, Parad RB; CF Newborn Screening Genetic Counseling Workgroup. Genetic counseling access for parents of newborns who screen positive for cystic fibrosis: consensus guidelines. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2022;57(4):894–902
  28. Comeau AM, Accurso FJ, White TB, et al. ; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Guidelines for implementation of cystic fibrosis newborn screening programs: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation workshop report. Pediatrics. 2007;119(2):e495–e518
  29. Foil KE, Powers A, Raraigh KS, et al. The increasing challenge of genetic counseling for cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2019;18(2):167–174
  30. Ooi CY, Castellani C, Keenan K, et al. Inconclusive diagnosis of cystic fibrosis after newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2015;135(6):e1377–e1385
  31. Cavanagh L, Compton CJ, Tluczek A, et al. Long-term evaluation of genetic counseling following false-positive newborn screen for cystic fibrosis. J Genet Couns. 2010;19(2):199–210
  32. Salinas DB, Sosnay PR, Azen C, et al. Benign and deleterious cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator mutations identified by sequencing in positive cystic fibrosis newborn screen children from California. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155624.
  33. Gonska T, Keenan K, Au J, et al. Outcomes of cystic fibrosis screening-positive infants with inconclusive diagnosis at school age. Pediatrics. 2021;148(6):148.
  34. Terlizzi V, Claut L, Colombo C, et al. Outcomes of early repeat sweat testing in infants with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome/CF screen-positive, inconclusive diagnosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56(12):5785–5791
  35. Munck A, Bourmaud A, Bellon G, et al. ; DPAM Study Group. Phenotype of children with inconclusive cystic fibrosis diagnosis after newborn screening. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020;55(4):918–928
  36. Terlizzi V, Mergni G, Buzzetti R, et al. Cystic fibrosis screen positive inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID): experience in Tuscany, Italy. J Cyst Fibros. 2019;18(4):484–490
  37. Terlizzi V, Claut L, Tosco A, et al. A survey of the prevalence, management and outcome of infants with an inconclusive diagnosis following newborn bloodspot screening for cystic fibrosis (CRMS/CFSPID) in six Italian centres. J Cyst Fibros. 2021;20(5):828–854
  38. Tosco A, Castaldo A, Colombo C, et al. Clinical outcomes of a large cohort of individuals with the F508del/5T;TG12 CFTR genotype. J Cyst Fibros. 2022;21(5):850–855
  39. Salinas DB, Ginsburg DK, Wee CP, et al. Gradual increase in sweat chloride concentration is associated with a higher risk of CRMS/CFSPID to CF reclassification. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2023;58(4):1074–1084
  40. Bauer SE, Lai HJ, McDonald CM, et al. Zinc status and growth in infants and young children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56(12):3768–3776
  41. Carlson D, McKeen E, Mitchell M, et al. Oropharyngeal flora in healthy infants: observations and implications for cystic fibrosis care. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44(5):497–502
  42. Rosenfeld M, Bernardo-Ocampo C, Emerson J, et al. Prevalence of cystic fibrosis pathogens in the oropharynx of healthy children and implications for cystic fibrosis care. J Cyst Fibros. 2012;11(5):456–457
  43. O’Sullivan BP, Baker D, Leung KG, et al. Evolution of pancreatic function during the first year in infants with cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr. 2013; 162(4):808–812.e1
  44. Ren CL, Desai H, Platt M, Dixon M. Clinical outcomes in infants with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) related metabolic syndrome. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2011;46(11):1079–1084
  45. Ren CL, Fink AK, Petren K, et al. Outcomes of infants with indeterminate diagnosis detected by cystic fibrosis newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2015;135(6):e1386–e1392
  46. Saiman L, Siegel JD, LiPuma JJ, et al. ; Cystic Fibrous Foundation; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infection prevention and control guideline for cystic fibrosis: 2013 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(Suppl 1):S1–S67
  47. Stoudemire W, Jiang X, Zhou JJ, et al. Cystic fibrosis program characteristics associated with adoption of 2013 infection prevention and control recommendations. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47(9):1090–1095
  48. Mogayzel PJ Jr, Naureckas ET, Robinson KA, et al. ; Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Pulmonary Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation pulmonary guideline. pharmacologic approaches to prevention and eradication of initial Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11(10):1640–1650
  49. Dolce D, Claut L, Colombo C, et al. Different management approaches and outcome for infants with an inconclusive diagnosis following newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CRMS/CFSPID) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolation. J Cyst Fibros. 2025;22(1):75–78
  50. Morice AH, Millqvist E, Bieksiene K, et al. ERS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in adults and children. Eur Respir J. 2020;55(1):1901136.
  51. Chang AB, Oppenheimer JJ, Irwin RS; CHEST Expert Cough Panel. Managing chronic cough as a symptom in children and management algorithms: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2020;158(1):303–329
  52. Chang AB, Oppenheimer JJ, Weinberger MM, et al. ; CHEST Expert Cough Panel. Management of children with chronic wet cough and protracted bacterial bronchitis: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2017;151(4):884–890
  53. McShane PJ, Naureckas ET, Tino G, Strek ME. Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(6):647–656
  54. Birnkrant DJ, Bushby K, Bann CM, et al. ; DMD Care Considerations Working Group. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 2: respiratory, cardiac, bone health, and orthopaedic management. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(4):347–361
  55. Pediatric Nutrition Handbook, 8th ed. American Academy of Pediatrics; 2019
  56. Messerli FH, Hofstetter L, Syrogiannouli L, et al. Sodium intake, life expectancy, and all-cause mortality. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(21):2103–2112
  57. Cook NR, Appel LJ, Whelton PK. Sodium intake and all-cause mortality over 20 years in the trials of hypertension prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(15):1609–1617
  58. Finder JD, Birnkrant D, Carl J, et al. ; American Thoracic Society. Respiratory care of the patient with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: ATS consensus statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170(4):456–465
  59. Bott J, Blumenthal S, Buxton M, et al. ; British Thoracic Society Physiotherapy Guideline Development Group. Guidelines for the physiotherapy management of the adult, medical, spontaneously breathing patient. Thorax. 2009;64(Suppl 1):i1–i51
  60. Bathgate CJ, Muther E, Georgiopoulos AM, et al. Positive and negative impacts of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor: healthcare providers’ observations across US centers. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2023;58(9):2469–2477
  61. Dagenais RVE, Su VCH, Quon BS. Real-world safety of CFTR modulators in the treatment of cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;10(1):23.
  62. Kapouni N, Moustaki M, Douros K, Loukou I. Efficacy and safety of elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor in the treatment of cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. Children (Basel). 2023;10(3):554.
  63. Ong T, Ramsey BW. Cystic fibrosis: a review. JAMA. 2023;329(21):1859–1871
  64. Mogayzel PJ Jr, Naureckas ET, Robinson KA, et al. ; Pulmonary Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. Cystic fibrosis pulmonary guidelines. Chronic medications for maintenance of lung health. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187(7):680–689
  65. Sinha A, Southern KW. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome/cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CRMS/CFSPID). Breathe (Sheff). 2021;17(3):210088.
  66. Johnson F, Southern KW, Ulph F. Psychological impact on parents of an inconclusive diagnosis following newborn bloodspot screening for cystic fibrosis: a qualitative study. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2019;5(2):23.
  67. Johnson F, Ulph F, MacLeod R, Southern KW. Receiving results of uncertain clinical relevance from population genetic screening: systematic review & meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30(5):520–531
  68. Tluczek A, Ersig AL, Lee S. Psychosocial issues related to newborn screening: a systematic review and synthesis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2022;8(4):53.
  69. Tluczek A, Koscik RL, Modaff P, et al. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents’ preferences regarding counseling at the time of infants’ sweat test. J Genet Couns. 2006;15(4):277–291
  70. Chudleigh J, Shakespeare L, Holder P, et al. Co-designing improved communication of newborn bloodspot screening results to parents: mixed methods study. J Particip Med. 2022;14(1):e33485.
  71. Hayeems RZ, Miller FA, Barg CJ, et al. Psychosocial response to uncertain newborn screening results for cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr. 2017;184:165–171.e1
  72. Quittner AL, Abbott J, Georgiopoulos AM, et al. ; International Committee on Mental Health; EPOS Trial Study Group. International Committee on Mental Health in Cystic Fibrosis: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and European Cystic Fibrosis Society consensus statements for screening and treating depression and anxiety. Thorax. 2016;71(1):26–34
  73. Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for anxiety in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438–1444
  74. Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for depression and suicide risk in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2022;328(15):1534–1542
  75. Ginsburg DK, Salinas DB, Cosanella TM, et al. High rates of anxiety detected in mothers of children with inconclusive cystic fibrosis screening results. J Cyst Fibros. 2023;22(3):420–426
  76. Tluczek A, Koscik RL, Farrell PM, Rock MJ. Psychosocial risk associated with newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents’ experience while awaiting the sweat-test appointment. Pediatrics. 2005;115(6):1692–1703
  77. Santhosh L, Chou CL, Connor DM. Diagnostic uncertainty: from education to communication. Diagnosis (Berl). 2019;6(2):121–126
  78. Chudleigh J, Barben J, Ren CL, Southern KW. International approaches to management of CFTR-related metabolic syndrome/cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2022;8(1):5.
  79. Siu AL, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for depression in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315(4):380–387
  80. Siu AL; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for depression in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20154467.
  81. Castaldo A, Cimbalo C, Castaldo RJ, et al. Cystic fibrosis-screening positive inconclusive diagnosis: newborn screening and long-term follow-up permits to early identify patients with CFTR-related disorders. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020; 10(8):570.
  82. Hatton A, Bergougnoux A, Zybert K, et al. Reclassifying inconclusive diagnosis after newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Moving forward. J Cyst Fibros. 2022;21(3):448–455
  83. Bombieri C, Claustres M, De Boeck K, et al. Recommendations for the classification of diseases as CFTR-related disorders. J Cyst Fibros. 2011;10(Suppl 2):S86–S102

Conditions covered

Cystic fibrosisCRMS/CFSPIDCFTR-related metabolic syndrome

Reproduced for free educational use under the licence shown above. WhiteCoat Pro is not affiliated with or endorsed by the authors, the publisher or the issuing organisation. Always check the original document for the current version.