Danya A Fox1, Rebecca Ronsley2, Asif R Khowaja3, Alon Haim4, Hilary Vallance5, Graham Sinclair5, Shazhan Amed2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: dfox@cw.bc.ca. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Pediatric Endocrinology Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Soroka Medical Center, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel. 5. BC Newborn Screening Program, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical impact of a congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) newborn screening program and incremental costs relative to benefits in screened vs unscreened infants. We hypothesized that screening would lead to clinical benefits and would be cost effective. STUDY DESIGN: This was an ambispective cohort study at British Columbia Children's Hospital, including infants diagnosed with CAH from 1988-2008 and 2010-2018. Data were collected retrospectively (unscreened cohort) and prospectively (screened cohort). Outcome measures included hospitalization, medical transport, and resuscitation requirements. The economic analysis was performed using a public payer perspective. RESULTS: Forty unscreened and 17 screened infants were diagnosed with CAH (47% vs 53% male). Median days to positive screen was 6 and age at diagnosis was 5 days (range, 0-30 days) and 6 days (range, 0-13 days) in unscreened and screened populations, respectively. In unscreened newborns, 55% required transport to a tertiary care hospital, 85% required hospitalization, and 35% required a fluid bolus compared with 29%, 29%, and 12% in screened infants, respectively. The cost of care was $33 770 per case in unscreened vs $17 726 in screened newborns. In the screened cohort, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $290 in the best case analysis and $4786 in the base case analysis, per hospital day avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with unscreened newborns, those screened for CAH were less likely to require medical transport and had shorter hospital stays. Screening led to a decrease in hospitalization costs. Although screening did not result in cost savings, it was assessed to be cost effective considering the clinical benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical impact of a congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) newborn screening program and incremental costs relative to benefits in screened vs unscreened infants. We hypothesized that screening would lead to clinical benefits and would be cost effective. STUDY DESIGN: This was an ambispective cohort study at British Columbia Children's Hospital, including infants diagnosed with CAH from 1988-2008 and 2010-2018. Data were collected retrospectively (unscreened cohort) and prospectively (screened cohort). Outcome measures included hospitalization, medical transport, and resuscitation requirements. The economic analysis was performed using a public payer perspective. RESULTS: Forty unscreened and 17 screened infants were diagnosed with CAH (47% vs 53% male). Median days to positive screen was 6 and age at diagnosis was 5 days (range, 0-30 days) and 6 days (range, 0-13 days) in unscreened and screened populations, respectively. In unscreened newborns, 55% required transport to a tertiary care hospital, 85% required hospitalization, and 35% required a fluid bolus compared with 29%, 29%, and 12% in screened infants, respectively. The cost of care was $33 770 per case in unscreened vs $17 726 in screened newborns. In the screened cohort, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $290 in the best case analysis and $4786 in the base case analysis, per hospital day avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with unscreened newborns, those screened for CAH were less likely to require medical transport and had shorter hospital stays. Screening led to a decrease in hospitalization costs. Although screening did not result in cost savings, it was assessed to be cost effective considering the clinical benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
Authors: Hedi L Claahsen-van der Grinten; Phyllis W Speiser; S Faisal Ahmed; Wiebke Arlt; Richard J Auchus; Henrik Falhammar; Christa E Flück; Leonardo Guasti; Angela Huebner; Barbara B M Kortmann; Nils Krone; Deborah P Merke; Walter L Miller; Anna Nordenström; Nicole Reisch; David E Sandberg; Nike M M L Stikkelbroeck; Philippe Touraine; Agustini Utari; Stefan A Wudy; Perrin C White Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Mirela Costa de Miranda; Luciana Bertocco de Paiva Haddad; Evelinda Trindade; Alex Cassenote; Giselle Y Hayashi; Durval Damiani; Fernanda Cavalieri Costa; Guiomar Madureira; Berenice Bilharinho de Mendonca; Tania A S S Bachega Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 3.418