Need advice from parents who have been there

Alyssa

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>

Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?

Meg</end quote></div>

Yes, many people with CF are pancreatic sufficient. I think the numbers are something like around 15%. Both my kids are PS and have no GI issues at all.





<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>websterhome</b></i>

Anyway, once we knew Lucy had it, they still wanted to do a sweat chloride test because it's considered the "gold standard" of CF diagnosis. I asked if it was possible for her sweat test to be negative even though her DNA test was positive, they said it would be incredibly unlikely. Christy</end quote></div>

I don't agree with the words "incredibly unlikely" as my kids, along with many others on this list have a negative sweat test but a positive DNA test. This is becoming more preventable as we see more people with a class IV or V gene type.

"Gold Standard" sweat testing if fine as long as you get a good clearly high positive number. But there are a lot of people out there with symptoms and a normal sweat test number, who fight tooth and nail to get genetic testing and find out that yep, it is indeed CF.

It does seem kind of funny when they do the sweat testing after DNA testing though huh? After 3 sweat tests, we were told that our daughter did not have CF... 8 years later DNA testing confirmed that she did in fact have 2 genes. A couple of years after that, the doctor decided to repeat the sweat test, and it still was exactly as it had been 10 years prior... 38.

Welcome to the site - both of you!
 

Alyssa

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>

Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?

Meg</end quote></div>

Yes, many people with CF are pancreatic sufficient. I think the numbers are something like around 15%. Both my kids are PS and have no GI issues at all.





<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>websterhome</b></i>

Anyway, once we knew Lucy had it, they still wanted to do a sweat chloride test because it's considered the "gold standard" of CF diagnosis. I asked if it was possible for her sweat test to be negative even though her DNA test was positive, they said it would be incredibly unlikely. Christy</end quote></div>

I don't agree with the words "incredibly unlikely" as my kids, along with many others on this list have a negative sweat test but a positive DNA test. This is becoming more preventable as we see more people with a class IV or V gene type.

"Gold Standard" sweat testing if fine as long as you get a good clearly high positive number. But there are a lot of people out there with symptoms and a normal sweat test number, who fight tooth and nail to get genetic testing and find out that yep, it is indeed CF.

It does seem kind of funny when they do the sweat testing after DNA testing though huh? After 3 sweat tests, we were told that our daughter did not have CF... 8 years later DNA testing confirmed that she did in fact have 2 genes. A couple of years after that, the doctor decided to repeat the sweat test, and it still was exactly as it had been 10 years prior... 38.

Welcome to the site - both of you!
 

Alyssa

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>

Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?

Meg</end quote></div>

Yes, many people with CF are pancreatic sufficient. I think the numbers are something like around 15%. Both my kids are PS and have no GI issues at all.





<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>websterhome</b></i>

Anyway, once we knew Lucy had it, they still wanted to do a sweat chloride test because it's considered the "gold standard" of CF diagnosis. I asked if it was possible for her sweat test to be negative even though her DNA test was positive, they said it would be incredibly unlikely. Christy</end quote></div>

I don't agree with the words "incredibly unlikely" as my kids, along with many others on this list have a negative sweat test but a positive DNA test. This is becoming more preventable as we see more people with a class IV or V gene type.

"Gold Standard" sweat testing if fine as long as you get a good clearly high positive number. But there are a lot of people out there with symptoms and a normal sweat test number, who fight tooth and nail to get genetic testing and find out that yep, it is indeed CF.

It does seem kind of funny when they do the sweat testing after DNA testing though huh? After 3 sweat tests, we were told that our daughter did not have CF... 8 years later DNA testing confirmed that she did in fact have 2 genes. A couple of years after that, the doctor decided to repeat the sweat test, and it still was exactly as it had been 10 years prior... 38.

Welcome to the site - both of you!
 

Alyssa

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>

Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?

Meg</end quote>

Yes, many people with CF are pancreatic sufficient. I think the numbers are something like around 15%. Both my kids are PS and have no GI issues at all.





<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>websterhome</b></i>

Anyway, once we knew Lucy had it, they still wanted to do a sweat chloride test because it's considered the "gold standard" of CF diagnosis. I asked if it was possible for her sweat test to be negative even though her DNA test was positive, they said it would be incredibly unlikely. Christy</end quote>

I don't agree with the words "incredibly unlikely" as my kids, along with many others on this list have a negative sweat test but a positive DNA test. This is becoming more preventable as we see more people with a class IV or V gene type.

"Gold Standard" sweat testing if fine as long as you get a good clearly high positive number. But there are a lot of people out there with symptoms and a normal sweat test number, who fight tooth and nail to get genetic testing and find out that yep, it is indeed CF.

It does seem kind of funny when they do the sweat testing after DNA testing though huh? After 3 sweat tests, we were told that our daughter did not have CF... 8 years later DNA testing confirmed that she did in fact have 2 genes. A couple of years after that, the doctor decided to repeat the sweat test, and it still was exactly as it had been 10 years prior... 38.

Welcome to the site - both of you!
 

Alyssa

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>
<br />
<br />Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?
<br />
<br />Meg</end quote>
<br />
<br />Yes, many people with CF are pancreatic sufficient. I think the numbers are something like around 15%. Both my kids are PS and have no GI issues at all.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>websterhome</b></i>
<br />
<br />Anyway, once we knew Lucy had it, they still wanted to do a sweat chloride test because it's considered the "gold standard" of CF diagnosis. I asked if it was possible for her sweat test to be negative even though her DNA test was positive, they said it would be incredibly unlikely. Christy</end quote>
<br />
<br />I don't agree with the words "incredibly unlikely" as my kids, along with many others on this list have a negative sweat test but a positive DNA test. This is becoming more preventable as we see more people with a class IV or V gene type.
<br />
<br />"Gold Standard" sweat testing if fine as long as you get a good clearly high positive number. But there are a lot of people out there with symptoms and a normal sweat test number, who fight tooth and nail to get genetic testing and find out that yep, it is indeed CF.
<br />
<br />It does seem kind of funny when they do the sweat testing after DNA testing though huh? After 3 sweat tests, we were told that our daughter did not have CF... 8 years later DNA testing confirmed that she did in fact have 2 genes. A couple of years after that, the doctor decided to repeat the sweat test, and it still was exactly as it had been 10 years prior... 38.
<br />
<br />Welcome to the site - both of you!
 

MicheleGazelle

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>

Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?



I cant remember if they screened me during pregnancy....if it was negative could that rule it out?



Meg</end quote></div>

I and my oldest son have "atypical CF". This is kind of a "newish", relatively mild diagnosis. Most folks with it are pancreatic sufficient. I was severely hypoglycemic prior to being diagnosed and put on digestive enzymes. Some doctors are still unfamiliar with this newer, milder diagnosis. I did wind up very ill and nearly died before I was finally diagnosed. Genetic tests turned up nothing and then my insurance company denied the request for a more comprehensive test. So, as a guess, even if you were screened during pregnancy, there may be genes that haven't yet been catalogued.

I was almost 36 when I was diagnosed. My son was 14.

Good luck with this.
 

MicheleGazelle

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>

Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?



I cant remember if they screened me during pregnancy....if it was negative could that rule it out?



Meg</end quote></div>

I and my oldest son have "atypical CF". This is kind of a "newish", relatively mild diagnosis. Most folks with it are pancreatic sufficient. I was severely hypoglycemic prior to being diagnosed and put on digestive enzymes. Some doctors are still unfamiliar with this newer, milder diagnosis. I did wind up very ill and nearly died before I was finally diagnosed. Genetic tests turned up nothing and then my insurance company denied the request for a more comprehensive test. So, as a guess, even if you were screened during pregnancy, there may be genes that haven't yet been catalogued.

I was almost 36 when I was diagnosed. My son was 14.

Good luck with this.
 

MicheleGazelle

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>

Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?



I cant remember if they screened me during pregnancy....if it was negative could that rule it out?



Meg</end quote></div>

I and my oldest son have "atypical CF". This is kind of a "newish", relatively mild diagnosis. Most folks with it are pancreatic sufficient. I was severely hypoglycemic prior to being diagnosed and put on digestive enzymes. Some doctors are still unfamiliar with this newer, milder diagnosis. I did wind up very ill and nearly died before I was finally diagnosed. Genetic tests turned up nothing and then my insurance company denied the request for a more comprehensive test. So, as a guess, even if you were screened during pregnancy, there may be genes that haven't yet been catalogued.

I was almost 36 when I was diagnosed. My son was 14.

Good luck with this.
 

MicheleGazelle

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>

Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?



I cant remember if they screened me during pregnancy....if it was negative could that rule it out?



Meg</end quote>

I and my oldest son have "atypical CF". This is kind of a "newish", relatively mild diagnosis. Most folks with it are pancreatic sufficient. I was severely hypoglycemic prior to being diagnosed and put on digestive enzymes. Some doctors are still unfamiliar with this newer, milder diagnosis. I did wind up very ill and nearly died before I was finally diagnosed. Genetic tests turned up nothing and then my insurance company denied the request for a more comprehensive test. So, as a guess, even if you were screened during pregnancy, there may be genes that haven't yet been catalogued.

I was almost 36 when I was diagnosed. My son was 14.

Good luck with this.
 

MicheleGazelle

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mama2emmett</b></i>
<br />
<br />Is it possible that it could be CF even without a failure to thrive or obvious GI involvement?
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />I cant remember if they screened me during pregnancy....if it was negative could that rule it out?
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Meg</end quote>
<br />
<br />I and my oldest son have "atypical CF". This is kind of a "newish", relatively mild diagnosis. Most folks with it are pancreatic sufficient. I was severely hypoglycemic prior to being diagnosed and put on digestive enzymes. Some doctors are still unfamiliar with this newer, milder diagnosis. I did wind up very ill and nearly died before I was finally diagnosed. Genetic tests turned up nothing and then my insurance company denied the request for a more comprehensive test. So, as a guess, even if you were screened during pregnancy, there may be genes that haven't yet been catalogued.
<br />
<br />I was almost 36 when I was diagnosed. My son was 14.
<br />
<br />Good luck with this.
 

SARAHSARAH253

New member
Hi there, I noticed in one of your post that your from WA...Did you mean Washington State..Just curious because we live in WA.

My name is Sarah, our son was born with Cystic Fibrosis Aug 17,2007. So, we are still new to this world of CF.

Sarah

Mommy to Johnny 14 months old w/cf..
 

SARAHSARAH253

New member
Hi there, I noticed in one of your post that your from WA...Did you mean Washington State..Just curious because we live in WA.

My name is Sarah, our son was born with Cystic Fibrosis Aug 17,2007. So, we are still new to this world of CF.

Sarah

Mommy to Johnny 14 months old w/cf..
 

SARAHSARAH253

New member
Hi there, I noticed in one of your post that your from WA...Did you mean Washington State..Just curious because we live in WA.

My name is Sarah, our son was born with Cystic Fibrosis Aug 17,2007. So, we are still new to this world of CF.

Sarah

Mommy to Johnny 14 months old w/cf..
 

SARAHSARAH253

New member
Hi there, I noticed in one of your post that your from WA...Did you mean Washington State..Just curious because we live in WA.

My name is Sarah, our son was born with Cystic Fibrosis Aug 17,2007. So, we are still new to this world of CF.

Sarah

Mommy to Johnny 14 months old w/cf..
 

SARAHSARAH253

New member
Hi there, I noticed in one of your post that your from WA...Did you mean Washington State..Just curious because we live in WA.
<br />
<br />My name is Sarah, our son was born with Cystic Fibrosis Aug 17,2007. So, we are still new to this world of CF.
<br />
<br />Sarah
<br />
<br />Mommy to Johnny 14 months old w/cf..
 
Top