Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41399729›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025

Case Report: Pitfalls in CF screening - targeted variant analysis can cause misleading results and therapy recommendations.

Maike Karnstedt, Simone Ahting, Sophie Behrendt, Maike Vom Hove, Julia Hentschel

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Maike KarnstedtInstitute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Simone AhtingInstitute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Sophie BehrendtInstitute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Maike Vom HoveDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Julia HentschelInstitute of Human Genetics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is primarily diagnosed in Germany through newborn screening (NS) using immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT)/Pancreatitis-Associated Protein (PAP) measurements and genetic testing for common CFTR gene variants. While this method is effective in identifying the most frequent mutations, it may overlook complex alleles, which can impact phenotype and treatment efficacy. Case Presentation: We report the case of a five-year-old girl diagnosed with CF through NS, initially identified as homozygous for the F508del variant. Despite early Orkambi therapy, her response was suboptimal, with high sweat chloride levels and recurrent respiratory infections. Re-sequencing with a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel revealed an additional undetected heterozygous pathogenic variant. Upon switching to elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ETI), sweat chloride levels significantly improved. Conclusion: Standard genetic screening methods may fail to detect complex alleles, leading to misinterpretation of genotype and suboptimal treatment choices. This case highlights the necessity of comprehensive genetic analysis in patients with unexpected therapy responses. When CFTR modulator therapy does not yield the expected improvements, re-sequencing should be considered to optimize precision medicine approaches for CF.

Indexed as

CFTR modulatorscomplex allelecystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR)newborn screeningnext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID41399729
PMCPMC12702500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.