Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26258410›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

An Economic Evaluation of Neonatal Screening for Inborn Errors of Metabolism Using Tandem Mass Spectrometry in Thailand.

Kittiphong Thiboonboon, Pattara Leelahavarong, Duangrurdee Wattanasirichaigoon, Nithiwat Vatanavicharn, Pornswan Wasant, Vorasuk Shotelersuk, Suthipong Pangkanon, Chulaluck Kuptanon, Sumonta Chaisomchit, Yot Teerawattananon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. International Newborn Screening: Where Are We in Saudi Arabia?Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Kittiphong ThiboonboonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Pattara LeelahavarongHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Duangrurdee WattanasirichaigoonDivision of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nithiwat VatanavicharnDivision of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pornswan WasantDivision of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Vorasuk ShotelersukCenter of Excellence for Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Suthipong PangkanonGenetic Unit, Department of Pediatrics, The Queen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chulaluck KuptanonGenetic Unit, Department of Pediatrics, The Queen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sumonta ChaisomchitNeonatal Screening Operation Centre, Department of Medical Science, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Yot TeerawattananonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Ministry of Public Health · THHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program · THSiriraj Hospital · THChulalongkorn University · THQueen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health · THRamathibodi Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInborn errors of metabolism (IEM) are a rare group of genetic diseases which can lead to several serious long-term complications in newborns. In order to address these issues as early as possible, a process called tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) can be used as it allows for rapid and simultaneous detection of the diseases. This analysis was performed to determine whether newborn screening by MS/MS is cost-effective in Thailand.

methodA cost-utility analysis comprising a decision-tree and Markov model was used to estimate the cost in Thai baht (THB) and health outcomes in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The results were also adjusted to international dollars (I$) using purchasing power parities (PPP) (1 I$ = 17.79 THB for the year 2013). The comparisons were between 1) an expanded neonatal screening programme using MS/MS screening for six prioritised diseases: phenylketonuria (PKU); isovaleric acidemia (IVA); methylmalonic acidemia (MMA); propionic acidemia (PA); maple syrup urine disease (MSUD); and multiple carboxylase deficiency (MCD); and 2) the current practice that is existing PKU screening. A comparison of the outcome and cost of treatment before and after clinical presentations were also analysed to illustrate the potential benefit of early treatment for affected children. A budget impact analysis was conducted to illustrate the cost of implementing the programme for 10 years.

resultsThe ICER of neonatal screening using MS/MS amounted to 1,043,331 THB per QALY gained (58,647 I$ per QALY gained). The potential benefits of early detection compared with late detection yielded significant results for PKU, IVA, MSUD, and MCD patients. The budget impact analysis indicated that the implementation cost of the programme was expected at approximately 2,700 million THB (152 million I$) over 10 years.

conclusionAt the current ceiling threshold, neonatal screening using MS/MS in the Thai context is not cost-effective. However, the treatment of patients who were detected early for PKU, IVA, MSUD, and MCD, are considered favourable. The budget impact analysis suggests that the implementation of the programme will incur considerable expenses under limited resources. A long-term epidemiological study on the incidence of IEM in Thailand is strongly recommended to ascertain the magnitude of problem.

Indexed as

Amino Acid Metabolism, Inborn ErrorsCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision TreesHumansInfant, NewbornIsovaleryl-CoA DehydrogenaseMaple Syrup Urine DiseaseMarkov ChainsMetabolism, Inborn ErrorsModels, EconomicMultiple Carboxylase DeficiencyMultivariate AnalysisNeonatal ScreeningPhenylketonuriasProbabilityPropionic AcidemiaIsovaleryl-CoA Dehydrogenase

Identifiers

PMID26258410
PMCPMC4530882
OpenAlexW1934133859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.