Newborn Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: Recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Am Fam Physician. 2005 Apr 15;71(8):1482-1487.

  Related Content

ACF  This article exemplifies the AAFP 2005 Annual Clinical Focus on the legal, social, clinical, and ethical issues of medical genomics.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published recommendations for newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in the October 15, 2004, recommendations and reports series of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.1 In this report, the CDC concludes that screening for cystic fibrosis is justified based on evidence of moderate benefit and low risk of harm. The report describes how screening is performed, reviews evidence on the benefits and harms from screening and early detection, and makes recommendations to state health departments. The report was prepared by a writing group of seven persons, five of whom were non-CDC experts. The report followed a November 2003 workshop co-sponsored by the CDC and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

The CDC recommends that states consider including cystic fibrosis in newborn screening panels, although it recognizes that states must consider resource constraints and competing priorities. Currently, 10 states screen newborns for cystic fibrosis. Furthermore, the CDC recommends that states that choose to screen for cystic fibrosis adopt planning and implementation procedures that include primary care physicians and specialists in cystic fibrosis care, and take steps to ensure that children have prompt access to diagnostic and therapeutic services for cystic fibrosis.

In reviewing the scientific evidence, the writing group for the CDC report used the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT), endorsed by American Family Physician for evidence-based recommendations.2 SORT distinguishes between disease-oriented outcomes, which consist of surrogate measurements collected during clinical care, and patient-oriented outcomes, which are endpoints that matter to people. Patient-oriented outcomes should be more influential in shaping evidence-based practice recommendations.2

Studies of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis have focused on disease-oriented outcomes, specifically measures of nutritional and pulmonary status. The evidence of nutritional benefit from early identification, including long-term reduction in short stature, is conclusive. However, the evidence for pulmonary benefit is mixed. The CDC review focused on patient-oriented outcomes: survival, cognitive outcomes, hospitalizations, and the use of invasive or burdensome therapies.

Based on the SORT criteria, the report assigned cystic fibrosis newborn screening a moderate (Grade B) recommendation, defined as a recommendation based on “inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence.” Unlike any other disorder in newborn screening panels, cystic fibrosis screening is supported by reliable evidence, including a high-quality randomized controlled trial in Wisconsin,3 one other trial,4 and cohort studies.58 In particular, the Wisconsin study found evidence of improved cognition functioning.9 In addition, there was evidence of improved child survival from a trial in the United Kingdom4 as well as from several cohort studies.58 Evidence from cohort studies of reduced rates of hospitalization and burdensome treatment was not confirmed by the Wisconsin study.

All screening is associated with costs and risks of physical and psychologic harm. Studies1012 of parents of children who screened positive and either did or did not receive a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis have found low levels of lingering anxiety and concern but no evidence of disturbed parent-child bonding. The Wisconsin study3 found evidence of physical harm in the form of earlier exposure of screened infants in one area to colonization with a serious lung pathogen, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which was associated with poorer long-term outcomes. The harm to these children was inadvertent, likely associated with person-to-person transmission in a crowded waiting room, and is preventable with proper precautions.13 This is not an inherent risk of newborn screening, and analysis of registry data shows that children with cystic fibrosis identified through newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in the United States are not subject to higher risk of early colonization.

To ensure that screening for cystic fibrosis results in more benefit than harm, the CDC recommends that a deliberative process be followed. First, before implementation of screening, states should consult with other states that have experience in screening for cystic fibrosis as well as cystic fibrosis specialists in their states. Second, they recommend that states carefully address provider and public education, infection control practices among providers of care to persons with cystic fibrosis, and effective communication with families. Third, they propose that state newborn screening programs develop systems in collaboration with specialty care providers to track short-term and long-term child outcomes and identify resources to support this activity.

The process of reviewing scientific evidence and addressing implementation and ethical issues is as important as the specific findings and recommendations of this report. With a wide array of potential new testing technologies and candidate disorders for newborn screening panels, it is more important than ever to establish an objective process for accumulating and interpreting scientific evidence to inform policy decisions.

The Authors

show all author info

SCOTT D. GROSSE, PH.D., is senior health economist in the Office of the Director at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga....

COLEEN A. BOYLE, PH.D., is director of the Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

JOSÉ F. CORDERO, M.D., M.P.H., is director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and assistant surgeon general, Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga.

Address correspondence to Scott D. Grosse, Ph.D., National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Mail Stop E-87, Atlanta, GA 30333 (e-mail:sgrosse@cdc.gov). Reprints are not available from the authors.

The authors thank Benjamin S. Wilfond and Anne M. Comeau for their assistance in the preparation of this editorial.


show all references

1. Grosse SD, Boyle CA, Botkin JR, Comeau AM, Kharrazi M, Rosenfeld M, et al. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: evaluation of benefits and risks and recommendations for state newborn screening programs. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004;53(RR–13):1–36....

2. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17:59–67.

3. Farrell PM, Kosorok MR, Rock MJ, Laxova A, Zeng L, Lai HC, et al. Early diagnosis of cystic fibrosis through neonatal screening prevents severe malnutrition and improves long-term growth. Wisconsin Cystic Fibrosis Neonatal Screening Study Group. Pediatrics. 2001;107:1–13.

4. Doull IJ, Ryley HC, Weller P, Goodchild MC. Cystic fibrosis-related deaths in infancy and the effect of newborn screening. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2001;31:363–6.

5. McKay KO, Waters DL, Gaskin KJ. The influence of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis on pulmonary outcomes in New South Wales. J Pediatr. In press.

6. Merelle ME, Schouten JP, Gerritsen J, Dankert-Roelse JE. Influence of neonatal screening and centralized treatment on long-term clinical outcome and survival of CF patients. Eur Respir J. 2001;18:306–15.

7. Siret D, Bretaudeau G, Branger B, Dabadie A, Dagorne M, David V, et al. Comparing the clinical evolution of cystic fibrosis screened neonatally to that of cystic fibrosis diagnosed from clinical symptoms: a 10–year retrospective study in a French region (Brittany). Pediatr Pulmonol. 2003;35:342–9.

8. Mastella G, Zanolla L, Castellani C, Altieri S, Furnari M, Giglio L, et al. Neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: long-term clinical balance. Pancreatology. 2001;1:531–7.

9. Koscik RL, Farrell PM, Kosorok MR, Zaremba KM, Laxova A, Lai HC, et al. Cognitive function of children with cystic fibrosis: deleterious effect of early malnutrition. Pediatrics. 2004;113:1549–58.

10. Mischler EH, Wilfond BS, Fost N, Laxova A, Reiser C, Sauer CM, et al. Cystic fibrosis newborn screening: impact on reproductive behavior and implications for genetic counseling. Pediatrics. 1998;102(1 pt 1):44–52.

11. Ciske DJ, Haavisto A, Laxova A, Rock LZ, Farrell PM. Genetic counseling and neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis: an assessment of the communication process. Pediatrics. 2001;107:699–705.

12. Parsons EP, Bradley DM. Psychosocial issues in newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2003;4:285–92.

13. Kosorok MR, Jalaluddin M, Farrell PM, Shen G, Colby CE, Laxova A, et al. Comprehensive analysis of risk factors for acquisition of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in young children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1998;26:81–8.



Copyright © 2005 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions

More in Pubmed


May 2022

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue

Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article