Allysa M. Kuypers

The introduction of nitisinone (NTBC) and newborn screening for Tyrosinemia type 1 (TT1) enabled preemptive treatment of patients, thereby significantly improving outcomes by preventing liver, kidney, and neurological issues. Treatment goals have shifted from emergency treatment to long‐term care. To evaluate the risk of developing complications with aging, due to TT1 itself or its treatment, long‐term follow‐up is essential. In 2014, an overview of TT1 management practices in Europe was published. Within the Metabolic European Reference Network's subnetwork on amino‐and‐organic acidurias (MetabERN‐AOA), we considered it important to give an update on current TT1 management practices in Europe. An online survey study was performed among members of the MetabERN‐AOA subnetwork, and participants of a workshop on TT1 at the European Metabolic Group Meeting of Nutricia. Findings were compared to existing data from the aforementioned publication from 2014 and previously published recommendations. Thirty‐two centers (16 European countries) completed the survey. Both consistencies and inconsistencies in TT1 management were seen. Inconsistencies were observed in the frequency and methods of follow‐up, dosing of NTBC, and target ranges of biochemical markers. Compared to 2014, key differences included an increased number of patients detected by newborn screening, lower NTBC dosing, and a shift from interest in mainly hepatic to hepatic and neurocognitive outcomes. These results align with trends seen in TT1 recommendations over the years. In addition to numerous consistencies, many aspects in TT1 management still differ widely across Europe, suggesting the need for uniform guidance in clinical management beyond existing recommendations.

The authors wish to make the following correction to their paper published in the International Journal of Neonatal Screening

Currently, Dutch newborns are screened for tyrosinemia type 1 (TT1) using succinylacetone (SA) as the biomarker. Although the sensitivity of the test is high, a high number of false positives is observed. Here, the aim is to evaluate the current Dutch newborn-screening protocol and to assess alternatives, specifically the use of biomarkers that are already being measured, to increase the positive predictive value (PPV). TT1 screening was performed with the Revvity NeoBase assay between 2008 and 2017, and since 2018, the Revvity NeoBase 2 assay has been used. Data from 2018 to 2021 were used for evaluation. To simulate alternative screening protocols, these data were enriched with results of referrals from other periods and a false negative (FN) from 2010. In 2018–2021, 693,821 newborns were screened, resulting in 23 referrals, of whom two were TT1 patients. For this period, to date, no FN have been reported, resulting in a provisional sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.997%, and a PPV and negative predictive value of 9% and 100%, respectively. To improve the PPV, we combined SA, tyrosine (tyr), tyr × SA and tyr/phenylalanine and achieved a PPV of 72% for this dataset without introducing FN in the original dataset. This illustrates that future screening for TT1 may benefit from the addition of these biomarkers.

In The Netherlands, newborn screening (NBS) for tyrosinemia type 1 (TT1) uses dried blood spot (DBS) succinylacetone (SUAC) as a biomarker. However, high false-positive (FP) rates and a false-negative (FN) case show that the Dutch TT1 NBS protocol is suboptimal. In search of optimization options, we evaluated the protocols used by other NBS programs and their performance. We distributed an online survey to NBS program representatives worldwide (N = 41). Questions focused on the organization and performance of the programs and on changes since implementation. Thirty-three representatives completed the survey. TT1 incidence ranged from 1/13,636 to 1/750,000. Most NBS samples are taken between 36 and 72 h after birth. Most used biomarkers were DBS SUAC (78.9%), DBS Tyrosine (Tyr; 5.3%), or DBS Tyr with second tier SUAC (15.8%). The pooled median cut-off for SUAC was 1.50 µmol/L (range 0.3–7.0 µmol/L). The median cut-off from programs using laboratory-developed tests was significantly higher (2.63 µmol/L) than the medians from programs using commercial kits (range 1.0–1.7 µmol/L). The pooled median cut-off for Tyr was 216 µmol/L (range 120–600 µmol/L). Overall positive predictive values were 25.9% for SUAC, 1.2% for Tyr solely, and 90.1% for Tyr + SUAC. One FN result was reported for TT1 NBS using SUAC, while three FN results were reported for TT1 NBS using Tyr. The NBS programs for TT1 vary worldwide in terms of analytical methods, biochemical markers, and cut-off values. There is room for improvement through method standardization, cut-off adaptation, and integration of new biomarkers. Further enhancement is likely to be achieved by the application of post-analytical tools.

We thank the authors for their comments

Undiagnosed and untreated tyrosinemia type 1 (TT1) individuals carry a significant risk for developing liver fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Elevated succinylacetone (SA) is pathognomonic for TT1 and therefore often used as marker for TT1 newborn screening (NBS). While SA was long considered to be elevated in every TT1 patient, here we present a recent false-negative SA TT1 screen. A nine-year-old boy presented with HCC in a cirrhotic liver. Additional tests for the underlying cause unexpectedly revealed TT1. Nine years prior, the patient was screened for TT1 via SA NBS with a negative result: SA 1.08 µmol/L, NBS cut-off 1.20 µmol/L. To our knowledge, this report is the first to describe a false-negative result from the TT1 NBS using SA. False-negative TT1 NBS results may be caused by milder TT1 variants with lower SA excretion. Such patients are more likely to be missed in NBS programs and can be asymptomatic for years. Based on our case, we advise TT1 to be considered in patients with otherwise unexplained liver pathology, including fibrosis, cirrhosis and HCC, despite a previous negative TT1 NBS status. Moreover, because the NBS SA concentration of this patient fell below the Dutch cut-off value (1.20 µmol/L at that time), as well as below the range of cut-off values used in other countries (1.29–10 µmol/L), it is likely that false-negative screening results for TT1 may also be occurring internationally. This underscores the need to re-evaluate TT1 SA NBS programs.

Residual heel prick Dried Blood Spots (DBS) are valuable samples for retrospective investigation of inborn metabolic diseases (IMD) and biomarker analyses. Because many metabolites suffer time-dependent decay, we investigated the five-year stability of amino acids (AA) in residual heel prick DBS. In 2019/2020, we analyzed 23 AAs in 2170 residual heel prick DBS from the Dutch neonatal screening program, stored from 2013–2017 (one year at +4 °C and four years at room temperature), using liquid chromatography mass-spectrometry. Stability was assessed by AA changes over the five years. Hydroxyproline could not be measured accurately and was not further assessed. Concentrations of 19 out of the remaining 22 AAs degraded significantly, ranked from most to least stable: aspartate, isoleucine, proline, valine, leucine, tyrosine, alanine, phenylalanine, threonine, citrulline, glutamate, serine, ornithine, glycine, asparagine, lysine, taurine, tryptophan and glutamine. Arginine, histidine and methionine concentrations were below the limit of detection and were likely to have been degraded within the first year of storage. AAs in residual heel prick DBS stored at room temperature are subject to substantial degradation, which may cause incorrect interpretation of test results for retrospective biomarker studies and IMD diagnostics. Therefore, retrospective analysis of heel prick blood should be done in comparison to similarly stored heel prick blood from controls.