OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for MCADD using tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) compared with clinical diagnosis within the Canadian context. DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was performed. For primary economic analysis, a decision-tree model was built based on the available information, the impact of newborn screening on the health care and the relevant Canadian data. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinical and two economic studies met the selection criteria. Mean incidence of MCADD was approximately 1:16,000. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 99.99%, respectively. Screening significantly lowered morbidity and mortality. Both economic studies showed that screening for MCADD using MS/MS was cost-effective if willingness-to-pay was US 50,000 dollars. Our primary economic analysis showed that screening was cost-effective based on the cost-effective threshold of C 20,000 dollars per QALY. CONCLUSION: Screening consumes more resources than no screening but attains better health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for MCADD using tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) compared with clinical diagnosis within the Canadian context. DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was performed. For primary economic analysis, a decision-tree model was built based on the available information, the impact of newborn screening on the health care and the relevant Canadian data. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinical and two economic studies met the selection criteria. Mean incidence of MCADD was approximately 1:16,000. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 99.99%, respectively. Screening significantly lowered morbidity and mortality. Both economic studies showed that screening for MCADD using MS/MS was cost-effective if willingness-to-pay was US 50,000 dollars. Our primary economic analysis showed that screening was cost-effective based on the cost-effective threshold of C 20,000 dollars per QALY. CONCLUSION: Screening consumes more resources than no screening but attains better health outcomes.
Authors: M L Couce; D E Castiñeiras; J D Moure; J A Cocho; P Sánchez-Pintos; J García-Villoria; D Quelhas; N Gregersen; B S Andresen; A Ribes; J M Fraga Journal: JIMD Rep Date: 2011-06-25
Authors: Maria D Karaceper; Pranesh Chakraborty; Doug Coyle; Kumanan Wilson; Jonathan B Kronick; Steven Hawken; Christine Davies; Marni Brownell; Linda Dodds; Annette Feigenbaum; Deshayne B Fell; Scott D Grosse; Astrid Guttmann; Anne-Marie Laberge; Aizeddin Mhanni; Fiona A Miller; John J Mitchell; Meranda Nakhla; Chitra Prasad; Cheryl Rockman-Greenberg; Rebecca Sparkes; Brenda J Wilson; Beth K Potter Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 4.123