Literature DB >> 26169436

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a National Newborn Screening Program for Biotinidase Deficiency.

Laura Vallejo-Torres1, Iván Castilla2, María L Couce3, Celia Pérez-Cerdá4, Elena Martín-Hernández5, Mercé Pineda6, Jaume Campistol7, Arantzazu Arrospide8, Stephen Morris9, Pedro Serrano-Aguilar10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are conflicting views as to whether testing for biotinidase deficiency (BD) ought to be incorporated into universal newborn screening (NBS) programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding BD to the panel of conditions currently screened under the national NBS program in Spain.
METHODS: We used information from the regional NBS program for BD that has been in place in the Spanish region of Galicia since 1987. These data, along with other sources, were used to develop a cost-effectiveness decision model that compared lifetime costs and health outcomes of a national birth cohort of newborns with and without an early detection program. The analysis took the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service. Effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We undertook extensive sensitivity analyses around the main model assumptions, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: In the base case analysis, NBS for BD led to higher QALYs and higher health care costs, with an estimated incremental cost per QALY gained of $24,677. Lower costs per QALY gained were found when conservative assumptions were relaxed, yielding cost savings in some scenarios. The probability that BD screening was cost-effective was estimated to be >70% in the base case at a standard threshold value.
CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that NBS for BD is likely to be a cost-effective use of resources.
Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26169436     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-3399

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  6 in total

1.  Neonatal screening for profound biotinidase deficiency in the Netherlands: consequences and considerations.

Authors:  Rachel C Wiltink; Michelle E Kruijshaar; Rick van Minkelen; Willem Onkenhout; Frans W Verheijen; Evelien A Kemper; Francjan J van Spronsen; Ans T van der Ploeg; Klary E Niezen-Koning; Jasper J Saris; Monique Williams
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Laboratory diagnosis of biotinidase deficiency, 2017 update: a technical standard and guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors:  Erin T Strovel; Tina M Cowan; Anna I Scott; Barry Wolf
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 8.822

3.  Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review.

Authors:  Ethan D Borre; Mohamed M Diab; Austin Ayer; Gloria Zhang; Susan D Emmett; Debara L Tucci; Blake S Wilson; Kamaria Kaalund; Osondu Ogbuoji; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-05-08

4.  Genotypic and phenotypic correlations of biotinidase deficiency in the Chinese population.

Authors:  Rai-Hseng Hsu; Yin-Hsiu Chien; Wuh-Liang Hwu; I-Fan Chang; Hui-Chen Ho; Shi-Ping Chou; Tzu-Ming Huang; Ni-Chung Lee
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 4.123

5.  Neonatal screening for biotinidase deficiency: A 30-year single center experience.

Authors:  Francesco Porta; Veronica Pagliardini; Isabella Celestino; Enza Pavanello; Severo Pagliardini; Ornella Guardamagna; Alberto Ponzone; Marco Spada
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab Rep       Date:  2017-09-20

6.  Case report of holocarboxylase synthetase deficiency (late-onset) in 2 Chinese patients.

Authors:  Zihong Xiong; Guoying Zhang; Xiaoli Luo; Ning Zhang; Jing Zheng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.