The reference methods used for sickle cell disease (SCD) screening usually include two analytical steps: a first tier for differentiating haemoglobin S (HbS) heterozygotes, HbS homozygotes and β-thalassemia from other samples, and a confirmatory second tier. Here, we evaluated a first-tier approach based on a fully automated matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) platform with automated sample processing, a laboratory information management system and NeoSickle^® software for automatic data interpretation. A total of 6701 samples (with high proportions of phenotypes homozygous (FS) or heterozygous (FAS) for the inherited genes for sickle haemoglobin and samples from premature newborns) were screened. The NeoSickle^® software correctly classified 98.8% of the samples. This specific blood sample collection was enriched in qualified difficult samples (premature newborns, FAS samples, late and very late samples, etc.). In this study, the sensitivity of FS sample detection was found to be 100% on the Lille MS facility and 99% on the Dijon MS facility, and the specificity of FS sample detection was found to be 100% on both MS facilities. The MALDI-MS platform appears to be a robust solution for first-tier use to detect the HbS variant: it is reproducible and sensitive, it has the power to analyze 600–1000 samples per day and it can reduce the unit cost of testing thanks to maximal automation, minimal intervention by the medical team and good overall practicability. The MALDI-MS approach meets today’s criteria for the large-scale, cost-effective screening of newborns, children and adults.

Previous research has shown that a MALDI-MS technique can be used to screen for sickle cell disease (SCD), and that a system combining automated sample preparation, MALDI-MS analysis and classification software is a relevant approach for first-line, high-throughput SCD screening. In order to achieve a high-throughput “plug and play” approach while detecting “non-standard” profiles that might prompt the misclassification of a sample, we have incorporated various sets of alerts into the decision support software. These included “biological alert” indicators of a newborn’s clinical status (e. g., detecting samples with no or low HbA), and “technical alerts” indicators for the most common non-standard profiles, i.e., those which might otherwise lead to sample misclassification. We evaluated these alerts by applying them to two datasets (produced by different laboratories). Despite the random generation of abnormal spectra by one-off technical faults or due to the nature and quality of the samples, the use of alerts fully secured the process of automatic sample classification. Firstly, cases of β-thalassemia were detected. Secondly, after a visual check on the tagged profiles and reanalysis of the corresponding biological samples, all the samples were correctly reclassified without prompting further alerts. All of the samples for which the results were not tagged were well classified (i.e., sensitivity and specificity = 1). The alerts were mainly designed for detecting false-negative classifications; all the FAS samples misclassified by the software as FA (a false negative) were marked with an alert. The implementation of alerts in the NeoScreening^® Laboratory Information Management System’s decision support software opens up perspectives for the safe, reliable, automated classification of samples, with a visual check solely on abnormal results or samples. It should now be possible to evaluate the combination of the NeoSickle^® analytical solution and the NeoScreening^® Laboratory Information Management System in a real-life, prospective study of first-line SCD screening.