Newborn screening for all identifiable disorders with tandem mass spectrometry is cost effective: Supporting arguments

Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore

Volumn 37, Issue 12 SUPPL., 2008, Pages 32-35

  Therrell, Bradford L ^a   Buechner, Colleen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^b National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Newborn screening; Tandem mass spectrometry

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INBORN ERROR OF METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING; TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; METABOLISM, INBORN ERRORS; NEONATAL SCREENING; TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY;

EID: 77952510143     PISSN: 03044602     EISSN: 29724066     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Millington DS, Kodo N, Norwood DL, Roe CR. Tandem mass spectrometry: a new method for acylcarnitine profiling with potential for neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism. J Inherit Metab Dis 1990;13:321-4.
2. Chace DH, Kalas TA, Naylor EW. Use of tandem mass spectrometry for multianalyte screening of dried blood specimens from newborns. Clin Chem 2003;49:1797-817.
3. American College of Medical Genetics, Newborn Screening Expert Group: Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet Med 2006;8:1S-252S.
4. Wilcken B. Evaluating outcomes of newborn screening programs. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 2003;34Suppl3:13-8.
5. Howse JL, Katz M. The importance of newborn screening. Pediatrics 2000;106:595.
6. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000;20:332-42.
7. Grosse SD. Does newborn screening save money? The difference between cost-effective and cost-saving interventions. J Pediatr 2005;146: 168-70.
8. Carroll AE, Downs SM. Comprehensive cost-utility analysis of newborn screening strategies. Pediatrics 2006;117suppl:S287-S295.
9. Schoen EJ, Baker JC, Colby CJ, To TT. Cost-benefit analysis of universal tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening. Pediatrics 2002;110:781-6.
10. Insinga RP, Laessig RH, Hoffman GL. Newborn screening with tandem mass spectrometry: examining its cost-effectiveness in the Wisconsin Newborn Screening Panel. J Pediatr 2002;141:524-31.
11. Venditti LN, Venditti CP, Berry GT, Kaplan PB, Kaye EM, Glick H, et al. Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Pediatrics 2003;112:1005-15.
12. Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelä M, Sintonen H, Koskinen H, Laajalahti L, Halila R, et al. Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: an analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision-making in Finland. Acta Paediatr 2005;94:1126-36.
13. van der Hilst CS, Derks TG, Reijngoud DJ, Smit GP, TenVergert EM. Cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: the homogeneous population of The Netherlands. J Pediatr 2007;151:115-20
14. Feuchtbaum L, Cunningham G. Economic evaluation of tandem mass spectrometry screening in California. Pediatrics. 2006; 117suppl:S280-S286.
15. Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S, Ampola M, Brewster TG, Demmer L, et al. Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA 2003;290: 2564-72.
16. Daniels M. Parents' knowledge of and experiences with the Ohio newborn screening program. Proceedings of the 2002 U.S. National Newborn Screening and Genetic Testing Symposium; 2002 November 4-7; Phoenix, Arizona. Washington, D.C.: Association of Public Health Laboratories, 2003:178-86.