OBJECTIVE: To undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis that compares pulse oximetry as an adjunct to clinical examination with clinical examination alone in newborn screening for congenital heart defects (CHDs). DESIGN: Model-based economic evaluation using accuracy and cost data from a primary study supplemented from published sources taking an NHS perspective. SETTING: Six large maternity units in the UK. PATIENTS: 20 055 newborn infants prior to discharge from hospital. INTERVENTION: Pulse oximetry as an adjunct to clinical examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost effectiveness based on incremental cost per timely diagnosis. RESULTS: Pulse oximetry as an adjunct to clinical examination is twice as costly but provides a timely diagnosis to almost 30 additional cases of CHD per 100 000 live births compared with a modelled strategy of clinical examination alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy compared with clinical examination alone is approximately £24 000 per case of timely diagnosis in a population in which antenatal screening for CHDs already exists. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £100 000, the probability of 'pulse oximetry as an adjunct to clinical examination' being cost effective is more than 90%. Such a WTP threshold is plausible if a newborn with timely diagnosis of a CHD gained just five quality-adjusted life years, even when treatment costs are taken into consideration. CONCLUSION: Pulse oximetry as an adjunct to current routine practice of clinical examination alone is likely to be considered a cost-effective strategy in the light of currently accepted thresholds.
OBJECTIVE: To undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis that compares pulse oximetry as an adjunct to clinical examination with clinical examination alone in newborn screening for congenital heart defects (CHDs). DESIGN: Model-based economic evaluation using accuracy and cost data from a primary study supplemented from published sources taking an NHS perspective. SETTING: Six large maternity units in the UK. PATIENTS: 20 055 newborn infants prior to discharge from hospital. INTERVENTION: Pulse oximetry as an adjunct to clinical examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost effectiveness based on incremental cost per timely diagnosis. RESULTS: Pulse oximetry as an adjunct to clinical examination is twice as costly but provides a timely diagnosis to almost 30 additional cases of CHD per 100 000 live births compared with a modelled strategy of clinical examination alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy compared with clinical examination alone is approximately £24 000 per case of timely diagnosis in a population in which antenatal screening for CHDs already exists. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £100 000, the probability of 'pulse oximetry as an adjunct to clinical examination' being cost effective is more than 90%. Such a WTP threshold is plausible if a newborn with timely diagnosis of a CHD gained just five quality-adjusted life years, even when treatment costs are taken into consideration. CONCLUSION: Pulse oximetry as an adjunct to current routine practice of clinical examination alone is likely to be considered a cost-effective strategy in the light of currently accepted thresholds.
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: Ilona C Narayen; Nico A Blom; Marjolein S Verhart; Marrit Smit; Fennie Posthumus; Annique J M van den Broek; Hester Havers; Monique C Haak; Arjan B te Pas Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Cora Peterson; April Dawson; Scott D Grosse; Tiffany Riehle-Colarusso; Richard S Olney; Jean Paul Tanner; Russell S Kirby; Jane A Correia; Sharon M Watkins; Cynthia H Cassell Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2013-09-02
Authors: P Nuntnarumit; P Thanomsingh; A Limrungsikul; S Wanitkun; T Sirisopikun; P Ausayapao Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Maria N Plana; Javier Zamora; Gautham Suresh; Luis Fernandez-Pineda; Shakila Thangaratinam; Andrew K Ewer Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-03-01