Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 1999 Mar;53(3):179–186. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.3.179

Secondary analysis of economic data: a review of cost-benefit studies of neonatal screening for phenylketonuria

J Lord, M J Thomason, P Littlejohns, R A Chalmers, M D Bain, G M Addison, A H Wilcox, C A Seymour
PMCID: PMC1756840  PMID: 10396496

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the net financial benefit of neonatal screening for phenylketonuria (PKU): by a simple pooling of cost data from the literature; and by a more complex modelling approach. DESIGN: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify papers containing data on the monetary costs and benefits of neonatal screening for PKU. The methodological quality of the studies was appraised, and data were extracted on resource use and expenditure. Monetary data were converted to common currency units, and standardised to UK incidence rates. Net benefits were calculated for median, best case and worst case scenarios, and the effect of excluding poor quality studies and data was tested. The net benefit was also estimated from a model based on data from the literature and assumptions appropriate for the current UK situation. Extensive sensitivity analysis was conducted. MAIN RESULTS: The direct net benefit of screening based on the median costs and benefits from the 13 studies identified was 143,400 Pounds per case detected and treated (39,000 Pounds and 241,800 Pounds for worst case and best case scenarios respectively). The direct net benefit obtained by the modelling approach was lower at 93,400 Pounds per case detected and treated. Screening remained cost saving under sensitivity analysis, except with low residential care costs (less than 12,300 Pounds per annum), or very low incidence rates (less than 1 in 27,000). CONCLUSIONS: The economic literature on PKU screening is of variable quality. The two methods of secondary analysis lead to the same conclusion: that neonatal PKU screening is worthwhile in financial terms alone in the UK, and that it justifies the infrastructure for collecting and testing neonatal blood samples. This result cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other countries.

 

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (133.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adams M. E., McCall N. T., Gray D. T., Orza M. J., Chalmers T. C. Economic analysis in randomized control trials. Med Care. 1992 Mar;30(3):231–243. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199203000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alm J., Bodegård G., Larsson A., Nyberg G., Zetterström R. Children with inborn errors of phenylalanine metabolism: prognosis and phenylalanine tolerance. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1986 Jul;75(4):619–625. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1986.tb10261.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alm J., Larsson A., Rosenqvist U. Health economic analysis of the Swedish neonatal metabolic screening programme. A method of optimizing routines. Med Decis Making. 1982;2(1):33–45. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8200200107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barden H. S., Kessel R., Schuett V. E. The costs and benefits of screening for PKU in Wisconsin. Soc Biol. 1984 Spring-Summer;31(1-2):1–17. doi: 10.1080/19485565.1984.9988558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Briggs A., Sculpher M., Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 1994 Mar-Apr;3(2):95–104. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Briggs A., Sculpher M. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies. Health Econ. 1995 Sep-Oct;4(5):355–371. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730040502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chace D. H., Millington D. S., Terada N., Kahler S. G., Roe C. R., Hofman L. F. Rapid diagnosis of phenylketonuria by quantitative analysis for phenylalanine and tyrosine in neonatal blood spots by tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chem. 1993 Jan;39(1):66–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cunningham G. C. Two years of PKU testing in California. The role of the laboratory. Calif Med. 1969 Jan;110(1):11–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dhondt J. L., Farriaux J. P., Sailly J. C., Lebrun T. Economic evaluation of cost-benefit ratio of neonatal screening procedure for phenylketonuria and hypothyroidism. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1991;14(4):633–639. doi: 10.1007/BF01797933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Evers S. M., Van Wijk A. S., Ament A. J. Economic evaluation of mental health care interventions. A review. Health Econ. 1997 Mar-Apr;6(2):161–177. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199703)6:2<161::aid-hec258>3.0.co;2-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fisch R. O., Bilek M. K., Bruhl H. H. Causes of death of institutionalized phenylketonuric (PKU) patients-A national survey. Minn Med. 1976 May;59(5):306–309. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hisashige A. Health economic analysis of the neonatal screening program in Japan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1994 Summer;10(3):382–391. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300006620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jacobs P., Bachynsky J. Costing methods in the Canadian literature on the economic evaluation of health care. A survey and assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996 Fall;12(4):721–734. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300011004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jefferson T., Demicheli V. Is vaccination against hepatitis B efficient? A review of world literature. Health Econ. 1994 Jan-Feb;3(1):25–37. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jefferson T., Mugford M., Gray A., Demicheli V. An exercise on the feasibility of carrying out secondary economic analyses. Health Econ. 1996 Mar-Apr;5(2):155–165. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<155::AID-HEC194>3.0.CO;2-O. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Komrower G. M., Sardharwalla I. B., Fowler B., Bridge C. The Manchester regional screening programme: a 10-year exercise in patient and family care. Br Med J. 1979 Sep 15;2(6191):635–638. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6191.635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Koopmanschap M. A., Rutten F. F. The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs. Health Econ. 1994 Nov-Dec;3(6):385–393. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lubenow N., Diepenbrock F., Schickling H., Bock D., Heckler R., Sander J. Phenylketonuria screening with a fluorometric microplate assay. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1994 Jul;32(7):525–528. doi: 10.1515/cclm.1994.32.7.525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mason J., Drummond M. Reporting guidelines for economic studies. Health Econ. 1995 Mar-Apr;4(2):85–94. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730040202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Cost-benefit analysis of newborn screening for metabolic disorders. N Engl J Med. 1974 Dec 26;291(26):1414–1416. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197412262912614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mölken M. P., Van Doorslaer E. K., Rutten F. F. Economic appraisal of asthma and COPD care: a literature review 1980-1991. Soc Sci Med. 1992 Jul;35(2):161–175. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90163-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. PKU screening-is it worth it? Can Med Assoc J. 1973 Feb 3;108(3):328–329. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Russell L. B., Gold M. R., Siegel J. E., Daniels N., Weinstein M. C. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996 Oct 9;276(14):1172–1177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Smith I., Cook B., Beasley M. Review of neonatal screening programme for phenylketonuria. BMJ. 1991 Aug 10;303(6798):333–335. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6798.333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Steiner K. C., Smith H. A. Application of cost-benefit analysis to a PKU screening program. Inquiry. 1973 Dec;10(4):34–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Sweetman L. Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry (MS-MS) Clin Chem. 1996 Mar;42(3):345–346. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Thomason M. J., Lord J., Bain M. D., Chalmers R. A., Littlejohns P., Addison G. M., Wilcox A. H., Seymour C. A. A systematic review of evidence for the appropriateness of neonatal screening programmes for inborn errors of metabolism. J Public Health Med. 1998 Sep;20(3):331–343. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Udvarhelyi I. S., Colditz G. A., Rai A., Epstein A. M. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature. Are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med. 1992 Feb 1;116(3):238–244. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-116-3-238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES