4.4 Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Newborn Screening for Spinal Muscular Atrophy in England

Journal

NEUROLOGY AND THERAPY
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages 1205-1220

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40120-023-00489-2

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness; Cost-utility analysis; Newborn screening; Nusinersen; Onasemnogene abeparvovec; Risdiplam; Spinal muscular atrophy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for 5q spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in England. The results show that newborn screening improves health outcomes for SMA patients and is also cost-effective compared to no screening.
IntroductionWe sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of newborn screening (NBS) versus no NBS for 5q spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in England.MethodsA cost-utility analysis using a combination of decision tree and Markov model structures was developed to estimate the lifetime health effects and costs of NBS for SMA, compared with no NBS, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England. A decision tree was designed to capture NBS outcomes, and Markov modeling was used to project long-term health outcomes and costs for each patient group following diagnosis. Model inputs were based on existing literature, local data, and expert opinion. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model and the validity of the results.ResultsThe introduction of NBS for SMA in England is estimated to identify approximately 56 (96% of cases) infants with SMA per year. Base-case results indicate that NBS is dominant (less costly and more effective) than a scenario without NBS, with a yearly cohort of newborns accruing incremental savings of 62,191,531 pound and an estimated gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 529 years over their lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the base-case results.ConclusionsNBS improves health outcomes for patients with SMA and is less costly compared with no screening; therefore, it is a cost-effective use of resources from the perspective of the NHS in England.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available