4.6 Article

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Pilot Neonatal Screening Program for Sickle Cell Anemia in the Republic of Angola

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 167, Issue 6, Pages 1314-1319

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.08.068

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Chevron

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of a pilot newborn screening (NBS) and treatment program for sickle cell anemia (SCA) in Luanda, Angola. Study design In July 2011, a pilot NBS and treatment program was implemented in Luanda, Angola. Infants identified with SCA were enrolled in a specialized SCA clinic in which they received preventive care and sickle cell education. In this analysis, the World Health Organization (WHO) and generalized cost-effectiveness analysis methods were used to estimate gross intervention costs of the NBS and treatment program. To determine healthy life-years (HLYs) gained by screening and treatment, we assumed NBS reduced mortality to that of the Angolan population during the first 5 years based upon WHO and Global Burden of Diseases Study 2010 estimates, but provided no significant survival benefit for children who survive through age 5 years. A secondary sensitivity analysis with more conservative estimates of mortality benefits also was performed. The costs of downstream medical costs, including acute care, were not included. Results Based upon the costs of screening 36 453 infants and treating the 236 infants with SCA followed after NBS in the pilot project, NBS and treatment program is projected to result in the gain of 452-1105 HLYs, depending upon the discounting rate and survival assumptions used. The corresponding estimated cost per HLY gained is $1380-$3565, less than the gross domestic product per capita in Angola. Conclusions These data demonstrate that NBS and treatment for SCA appear to be highly cost-effective across all scenarios for Angola by the WHO criteria.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available