Literature DB >> 9799881

Costs, effects, and savings of screening for cystic fibrosis gene carriers.

M F Wildhagen1, H B Hilderink, J G Verzijl, J B Verheij, L Kooij, T Tijmstra, L P ten Kate, J D Habbema.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating the costs, effects, and savings of several strategies for cystic fibrosis (CF) gene carrier screening.
DESIGN: A general model for evaluating prenatal, preconceptional, school, and neonatal carrier screening was constructed. For prenatal and preconceptional screening, two strategies were evaluated: single entry and double entry two step couple screening. Firstly, the Dutch situation was evaluated prospectively; subsequently the results were generalised to other carrier frequencies.
SETTING: Prospective simulation model. MAIN
RESULTS: Of all screening strategies, neonatal carrier screening gives most carrier couples an informed choice concerning reproduction. If the parents of carrier newborns would not be tested however, prenatal screening detects most carrier couples. Prenatal and single entry preconceptional screening programmes have a favourable cost-savings balance in the Netherlands under a wide range of assumptions. For double entry preconceptional screening and neonatal screening, high enough values of uptake of screening, prenatal diagnosis, and induced abortion are necessary. School carrier screening does not have a favourable cost-savings balance.
CONCLUSIONS: If a CF screening programme is judged to be useful on individual and social grounds, costs considerations are no obstacle for prenatal and single entry preconceptional screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9799881      PMCID: PMC1756730          DOI: 10.1136/jech.52.7.459

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  44 in total

1.  Couple screening for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  N J Wald
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-11-23       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Cystic fibrosis in the Netherlands.

Authors:  L P Ten Kate
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 7.196

3.  What do young people think about screening for cystic fibrosis?

Authors:  E Cobb; S Holloway; R Elton; J A Raeburn
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 6.318

4.  Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: genetic analysis.

Authors:  B Kerem; J M Rommens; J A Buchanan; D Markiewicz; T K Cox; A Chakravarti; M Buchwald; L C Tsui
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-09-08       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Prevention of thalassaemia major in Latium (Italy)

Authors:  I Bianco; B Graziani; M Lerone; P Congedo; M C Aliquo'; D Ponzini; F Braconi; E Foglietta; G Modiano
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-10-19       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: cloning and characterization of complementary DNA.

Authors:  J R Riordan; J M Rommens; B Kerem; N Alon; R Rozmahel; Z Grzelczak; J Zielenski; S Lok; N Plavsic; J L Chou
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-09-08       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  The natural history of cytogenetically abnormal fetuses detected at midtrimester amniocentesis which are not terminated electively: new data and estimates of the excess and relative risk of late fetal death associated with 47,+21 and some other abnormal karyotypes.

Authors:  E B Hook; B B Topol; P K Cross
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Cystic fibrosis heterozygote screening in 5,161 pregnant women.

Authors:  D R Witt; C Schaefer; P Hallam; S Wi; B Blumberg; A Fishbach; J Holtzman; S Kornfeld; R Lee; L Nemzer; R Palmer
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: chromosome walking and jumping.

Authors:  J M Rommens; M C Iannuzzi; B Kerem; M L Drumm; G Melmer; M Dean; R Rozmahel; J L Cole; D Kennedy; N Hidaka
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-09-08       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis through primary health care services.

Authors:  E K Watson; E Mayall; J Chapple; M Dalziel; K Harrington; C Williams; R Williamson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-08-31
View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  One of these things is not like the others: the idea of precedence in health technology assessment and coverage decisions.

Authors:  Mita Giacomini
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Attitudes of potential providers towards preconceptional cystic fibrosis carrier screening.

Authors:  Francis A M Poppelaars; Herman J Adèr; Martina C Cornel; Lidewij Henneman; Rosella P M G Hermens; Gerrit van der Wal; Leo P ten Kate
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?

Authors:  Fernando Antoñanzas; R Rodríguez-Ibeas; M F Hutter; R Lorente; C Juárez; M Pinillos
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-05-20

4.  Withdrawing low risk women from cervical screening programmes: mathematical modelling study.

Authors:  C Sherlaw-Johnson; S Gallivan; D Jenkins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-02-06

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stuart J Wright; Cheryl Jones; Katherine Payne; Nimarta Dharni; Fiona Ulph
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.561

7.  Cost-effectiveness of the CFTR gene-sequencing test for asymptomatic carriers in the Colombian population

Authors:  Ernesto Andrade; Jorge Díaz
Journal:  Biomedica       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 0.935

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.