ABSTRACT
Introduction We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of newborn screening (NBS) versus no NBS for 5q spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in England.
Methods A 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 modelling 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.
Results The 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 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.
Conclusions NBS 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.
Competing Interest Statement
DW and RH are full-time employees of Clarivate and consultants for Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc. LS has received personal compensation for consultancy for Biogen, Biophytis, Cytokinetics, Dynacure, Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., Novartis, Roche, Santhera, Sarepta Therapeutics, and Zentech. He has received research support from Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., Biogen, Dynacure, and Roche; and he leads the Belgium and UK NBS funded by Biogen, Novartis, and Roche. IK and MB are employees of Novartis Gene Therapies and own stock/other equities.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article [and its supplementary information files]
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Peer review comments have been addressed, including an update to the Discussion to clarify the source of live births and the authors' methods for including four copy patients. In addition, the title has been changed to remove Wales as this analysis and model focused on England only. This adjustment has been carried through the entire paper.
Data Availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article [and its supplementary information files].
