Published online September 1, 2006
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 3 September 2006, pp. 896-905 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2782)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van den Akker-van Marle, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Dankert-Roelse, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van den Akker-van Marle, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Dankert-Roelse, J. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Respiratory Tract
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

ARTICLE

Cost-effectiveness of 4 Neonatal Screening Strategies for Cystic Fibrosis

M. Elske van den Akker-van Marle, PhDa, Hinke M. Dankert, BSca, Paul H. Verkerk, PhDa and Jeannette E. Dankert-Roelse, MD, PhDb

a Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, Quality of Life, Leiden, Netherlands
b Department of Pediatrics, Atrium Medical Centre, Heerlen, Netherlands

OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this work was to assess the costs of 4 neonatal screening strategies for cystic fibrosis in relation to health effects. In each strategy, the first test was the measurement of serum concentration of immunoreactive trypsin. The second step consisted of either a second immunoreactive trypsin test (strategy 1) or a multiple mutation analysis (strategy 2). In strategies 3 and 4, a third step was added to strategy 2: a second immunoreactive trypsin test (strategy 3) or an extended mutation analysis of the cystic fibrosis gene, that is, a denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis (strategy 4).

METHODS. We conducted an economic-modeling exercise in the Netherlands based on published data and expert opinions. Subjects were a hypothetical cohort of 200 000 neonates, the approximate number of children born annually in the Netherlands, and we assessed the costs and number of life-years gained as a result of neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis. The costs and effects of changes in reproductive decisions because of neonatal screening were also assessed.

RESULTS. Immunoreactive trypsin + immunoreactive trypsin had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of {euro}24800 per life-year gained. Immunoreactive trypsin + DNA + denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis achieved more health effects than immunoreactive trypsin + DNA + immunoreactive trypsin at lower cost. The incremental costs per life-year gained of the immunoreactive trypsin + DNA + denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis strategy compared with the immunoreactive trypsin + immunoreactive trypsin strategy were {euro}130700, whereas the incremental costs of the immunoreactive trypsin + DNA strategy compared with the immunoreactive trypsin + DNA + denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis strategy were {euro}2154300. When changes in reproductive decisions as a result of neonatal screening are also taken into account, neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis may lead to financial savings of approximately {euro}1.8 million annually, depending on the screening strategy used.

CONCLUSIONS. Cystic fibrosis screening for neonates is a good economic option, and positive health effects can also be expected. Immunoreactive trypsin + immunoreactive trypsin and immunoreactive trypsin + DNA + denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis are the most cost-effective strategies.

Key Words: cost-effectiveness • economic evaluation • neonatal • screening-newborn

Abbreviations: CF—cystic fibrosis • IRT—immunoreactive trypsin • DGGE—denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis

Accepted Apr 18, 2006.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NeoReviewsHome page
L. F. Ross
Ethical and Policy Issues in Newborn Screening: Historical, Current, and Future Developments
NeoReviews, February 1, 2009; 10(2): e71 - e81.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]