Early human development · 1996
A cost-effectiveness evaluation of newborn hemoglobinopathy screening from the perspective of state health care systems.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gessner B D, Teutsch S M, Shaffer P A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective strategy for newborn hemoglobinopathy screening from the perspective of state health care systems.
STUDY DESIGN: Using Alaska as an example, we used decision analysis to compare a policy of no screening to universal or targeted screening with selective follow-up only of infants who are homozygous or compound heterozygous for an abnormal hemoglobin variant and to universal or targeted screening with complete follow-up, including follow-up of infants with clinically insignificant traits. Probabilities and costs were varied over values that might be expected for other states.
RESULTS: Among the selective follow-up options, targeted screening would be the most cost-effective strategy for Alaska at a cost of $206,192 per death averted; by contrast, universal screening would prevent 50% more deaths at an incremental cost of $2,040,000 per death averted. Universal would be more cost-effective than targeted screening for several scenarios expected to occur in other states, including a high sickle cell disease prevalence, a low screening test cost, and a high cost per screen associated with racial targeting. Among the complete follow-up options, both targeted and universal screening would cost at least $200,000 per death averted over the range of all variables tested during sensitivity analysis; the incremental cost of universal versus targeted screening would be at least $600,000 per death averted.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest each state should determine the most cost-effective option based on state-specific values for sickle cell disease prevalence, test costs and racial targeting costs.
STUDY DESIGN: Using Alaska as an example, we used decision analysis to compare a policy of no screening to universal or targeted screening with selective follow-up only of infants who are homozygous or compound heterozygous for an abnormal hemoglobin variant and to universal or targeted screening with complete follow-up, including follow-up of infants with clinically insignificant traits. Probabilities and costs were varied over values that might be expected for other states.
RESULTS: Among the selective follow-up options, targeted screening would be the most cost-effective strategy for Alaska at a cost of $206,192 per death averted; by contrast, universal screening would prevent 50% more deaths at an incremental cost of $2,040,000 per death averted. Universal would be more cost-effective than targeted screening for several scenarios expected to occur in other states, including a high sickle cell disease prevalence, a low screening test cost, and a high cost per screen associated with racial targeting. Among the complete follow-up options, both targeted and universal screening would cost at least $200,000 per death averted over the range of all variables tested during sensitivity analysis; the incremental cost of universal versus targeted screening would be at least $600,000 per death averted.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest each state should determine the most cost-effective option based on state-specific values for sickle cell disease prevalence, test costs and racial targeting costs.