Literature DB >> 20207244

The cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening for spinal muscular atrophy.

Sarah E Little1, Vanitha Janakiraman, Anjali Kaimal, Thomas Musci, Jeffrey Ecker, Aaron B Caughey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). STUDY
DESIGN: A decision analytic model was created to compare a policy of universal SMA screening to that of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost per maternal quality-adjusted life year. Probabilities, costs, and outcomes were estimated through literature review. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of our model to changes in baseline assumptions.
RESULTS: Universal screening for SMA is not cost-effective at $4.9 million per quality-adjusted life year. In all, 12,500 women need to be screened to prevent 1 case of SMA, at a cost of $5.0 million per case averted. Our results were most sensitive to the baseline prevalence of disease.
CONCLUSION: Universal prenatal screening for SMA is not cost-effective. For populations at high risk, such as those with a family history, SMA testing may be a cost-effective strategy. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20207244     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  12 in total

1.  Cell-free fetal DNA testing for fetal aneuploidy and beyond: clinical integration challenges in the US context.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Lauren C Sayres; Jaime S King; Mary E Norton; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  The changing landscape of carrier screening: expanding technology and options?.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Deborah Cho; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Health Matrix Clevel       Date:  2013

3.  A common spinal muscular atrophy deletion mutation is present on a single founder haplotype in the US Hutterites.

Authors:  Jessica X Chong; A Afşin Oktay; Zunyan Dai; Kathryn J Swoboda; Thomas W Prior; Carole Ober
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of a system-based approach for managing neonatal jaundice and preventing kernicterus in Ontario.

Authors:  Bin Xie; Orlando da Silva; Greg Zaric
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.253

Review 5.  How should costs and cost-effectiveness be considered in prenatal genetic testing?

Authors:  Teresa N Sparks; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.300

6.  Cost-Effectiveness of Nusinersen and Universal Newborn Screening for Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Authors:  Ali Jalali; Erin Rothwell; Jeffrey R Botkin; Rebecca A Anderson; Russell J Butterfield; Richard E Nelson
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 7.  Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters.

Authors:  Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Margaret L Brandeau
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.749

8.  Maternal serologic screening to prevent congenital toxoplasmosis: a decision-analytic economic model.

Authors:  Eileen Stillwaggon; Christopher S Carrier; Mari Sautter; Rima McLeod
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2011-09-27

9.  Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of a 176-condition expanded carrier screen.

Authors:  Kyle A Beauchamp; Katherine A Johansen Taber; Dale Muzzey
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Population genomic screening of all young adults in a health-care system: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Yining Bao; Moeen Riaz; Jane Tiller; Danny Liew; Xun Zhuang; David J Amor; Aamira Huq; Lara Petelin; Mark Nelson; Paul A James; Ingrid Winship; John J McNeil; Paul Lacaze
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2019-02-18       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.