OBJECTIVES: Congenital heart defects (CHD) are an important cause of death and morbidity in early childhood, but the effectiveness of alternative newborn screening strategies in preventing the collapse or death--before diagnosis--of infants with treatable but life-threatening defects is uncertain. We assessed their effectiveness and efficiency to inform policy and research priorities. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of clinical examination alone and clinical examination with either pulse oximetry or screening echocardiography in making a timely diagnosis of life-threatening CHD or in diagnosing clinically significant CHD. We contrasted their cost-effectiveness, using a decision-analytic model based on 100,000 live births, and assessed future research priorities using value of information analysis. RESULTS: Clinical examination alone, pulse oximetry, and screening echocardiography achieved 34.0, 70.6, and 71.3 timely diagnoses per 100,000 live births, respectively. This finding represents an additional cost per additional timely diagnosis of 4,894 pounds and 4,496,666 pounds for pulse oximetry and for screening echocardiography. The equivalent costs for clinically significant CHD are 1,489 pounds and 36,013 pounds, respectively. Key determinants of cost-effectiveness are detection rates and screening test costs. The false-positive rate is very high with screening echocardiography (5.4 percent), but lower with pulse oximetry (1.3 percent) or clinical examination alone (.5 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Adding pulse oximetry to clinical examination is likely to be a cost-effective newborn screening strategy for CHD, but further research is required before this policy can be recommended. Screening echocardiography is unlikely to be cost-effective, unless the detection of all clinically significant CHD is considered beneficial and a 5 percent false-positive rate acceptable.
OBJECTIVES: Congenital heart defects (CHD) are an important cause of death and morbidity in early childhood, but the effectiveness of alternative newborn screening strategies in preventing the collapse or death--before diagnosis--of infants with treatable but life-threatening defects is uncertain. We assessed their effectiveness and efficiency to inform policy and research priorities. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of clinical examination alone and clinical examination with either pulse oximetry or screening echocardiography in making a timely diagnosis of life-threatening CHD or in diagnosing clinically significant CHD. We contrasted their cost-effectiveness, using a decision-analytic model based on 100,000 live births, and assessed future research priorities using value of information analysis. RESULTS: Clinical examination alone, pulse oximetry, and screening echocardiography achieved 34.0, 70.6, and 71.3 timely diagnoses per 100,000 live births, respectively. This finding represents an additional cost per additional timely diagnosis of 4,894 pounds and 4,496,666 pounds for pulse oximetry and for screening echocardiography. The equivalent costs for clinically significant CHD are 1,489 pounds and 36,013 pounds, respectively. Key determinants of cost-effectiveness are detection rates and screening test costs. The false-positive rate is very high with screening echocardiography (5.4 percent), but lower with pulse oximetry (1.3 percent) or clinical examination alone (.5 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Adding pulse oximetry to clinical examination is likely to be a cost-effective newborn screening strategy for CHD, but further research is required before this policy can be recommended. Screening echocardiography is unlikely to be cost-effective, unless the detection of all clinically significant CHD is considered beneficial and a 5 percent false-positive rate acceptable.
Authors: Cora Peterson; Scott D Grosse; Jill Glidewell; Lorraine F Garg; Kim Van Naarden Braun; Mary M Knapp; Leslie M Beres; Cynthia F Hinton; Richard S Olney; Cynthia H Cassell Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Matthew E Oster; Susan W Aucott; Jill Glidewell; Jesse Hackell; Lazaros Kochilas; Gerard R Martin; Julia Phillippi; Nelangi M Pinto; Annamarie Saarinen; Marci Sontag; Alex R Kemper Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Frank Thomas Riede; Cornelia Wörner; Ingo Dähnert; Andreas Möckel; Martin Kostelka; Peter Schneider Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Ruoyan Gai Tobe; Gerard R Martin; Fuhai Li; Akinori Moriichi; Bin Wu; Rintaro Mori Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: A J Agopian; Laura E Mitchell; Joseph Glessner; Angela D Bhalla; Anshuman Sewda; Hakon Hakonarson; Elizabeth Goldmuntz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 3.240