Journals Library

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tandem mass spectrometry (MS)-based neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism (IEM).

DATA SOURCES

Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases covering biomedical, science, economic and grey literature, the reference lists of relevant articles and abstracts of conference proceedings and 18 health services research-related resources.

REVIEW METHODS

This review is an update of two previous HTA reports of neonatal screening for IEM. These reports have been updated by a systematic review of published research (between 1995 and January 2002) on neonatal screening of inherited metabolic disorders using tandem MS. This was supplemented by a search for economic literature and the application of a modelling exercise to investigate the economics of using tandem MS within a neonatal screening programme in the UK.

RESULTS

Evidence from the reviews of IEM found that the UK screening programme for phenylketonuria (PKU) was well established and there was universal agreement that neonatal screening for PKU was justified. Of the many other disorders that can be detected by tandem MS, the best candidate condition for a new screening programme was medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency. For many other IEM that can be detected by tandem MS, robust clinical evidence was limited. Cost-effectiveness analysis using economic modelling indicated that substituting the use of tandem MS for existing technologies for the screening of PKU alone could not be justified. However, results from the economic modelling indicate that the addition of screening for MCAD deficiency as part of a neonatal screening programme for PKU using tandem MS would be economically attractive. Using an operational range of 50,000-60,000 specimens per system per year, the mean incremental cost for PKU and MCAD deficiency screening combined using tandem MS from the model was -23,312 British pounds for each cohort of 100,000 neonates screened. This cost saving is associated with a mean incremental gain of 59 life-years. Additional economic modelling using the available evidence does not support including other inherited metabolic diseases within a neonatal screening programme at present.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence appears to support the introduction of tandem MS into a UK neonatal screening programme for PKU and MCAD deficiency combined. Tandem MS has the potential for simultaneous multi-disease screening using a single analytical technique. Although the marginal cost of extending the programme to include other conditions may be relatively small, the application of this new technology to PKU and MCAD deficiency screening does not imply the wholesale inclusion of all disorders detectable by tandem MS. It is suggested that the primary focus of further research should be on the long-term effectiveness of treatment strategies on adverse outcomes (disabilities and impairments) under conventional management and the potential impact of early diagnosis using tandem MS.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tandem mass spectrometry (MS)-based neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism (IEM).

DATA SOURCES

Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases covering biomedical, science, economic and grey literature, the reference lists of relevant articles and abstracts of conference proceedings and 18 health services research-related resources.

REVIEW METHODS

This review is an update of two previous HTA reports of neonatal screening for IEM. These reports have been updated by a systematic review of published research (between 1995 and January 2002) on neonatal screening of inherited metabolic disorders using tandem MS. This was supplemented by a search for economic literature and the application of a modelling exercise to investigate the economics of using tandem MS within a neonatal screening programme in the UK.

RESULTS

Evidence from the reviews of IEM found that the UK screening programme for phenylketonuria (PKU) was well established and there was universal agreement that neonatal screening for PKU was justified. Of the many other disorders that can be detected by tandem MS, the best candidate condition for a new screening programme was medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency. For many other IEM that can be detected by tandem MS, robust clinical evidence was limited. Cost-effectiveness analysis using economic modelling indicated that substituting the use of tandem MS for existing technologies for the screening of PKU alone could not be justified. However, results from the economic modelling indicate that the addition of screening for MCAD deficiency as part of a neonatal screening programme for PKU using tandem MS would be economically attractive. Using an operational range of 50,000-60,000 specimens per system per year, the mean incremental cost for PKU and MCAD deficiency screening combined using tandem MS from the model was -23,312 British pounds for each cohort of 100,000 neonates screened. This cost saving is associated with a mean incremental gain of 59 life-years. Additional economic modelling using the available evidence does not support including other inherited metabolic diseases within a neonatal screening programme at present.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence appears to support the introduction of tandem MS into a UK neonatal screening programme for PKU and MCAD deficiency combined. Tandem MS has the potential for simultaneous multi-disease screening using a single analytical technique. Although the marginal cost of extending the programme to include other conditions may be relatively small, the application of this new technology to PKU and MCAD deficiency screening does not imply the wholesale inclusion of all disorders detectable by tandem MS. It is suggested that the primary focus of further research should be on the long-term effectiveness of treatment strategies on adverse outcomes (disabilities and impairments) under conventional management and the potential impact of early diagnosis using tandem MS.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions