4.4 Article

Economic assessment of screening for pre-eclampsia

Journal

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 29-38

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.2871

Keywords

PP13; PIGF; Doppler; early and late pre-eclampsia; QALY; diabetes

Funding

  1. European Union [037244]
  2. Canada-Israel industrial RD Fund (CIIRDF) [39]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Pre-eclampsia is a major contributor to maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, Our objectives in this study are to economically assess, from the payer perspective, routine screening for pre-eclampsia using placental markers -placental protein 13 and placental growth factor - and uterine artery Doppler compared with standard care. Methods A decision model was developed, which progresses through three sequential endpoints, and compares screening with no screening: (1) Pre-eclampsia yes/no: calculation of the incremental cost of pre-eclampsia-case averted; (2) Hospital discharge: calculation of the mean accumulated costs until discharge after delivery; and (3) Offspring death: calculation of the incremental cost per quality of life-adjusted life-year gained by screening. Data used includes: (1) Obstetrical data of 14 500 births; (2) cost data from the Israeli Ministry of Health and the literature; and (3) screening performance and outcome from the literature. Results (1) The incremental cost of pre-eclampsia-case averted is $66 949 and $24 723 when the prevalence is 1.7 and 5% respectively. (2) With test cost of $112, the total cost until discharge with/without screening is equal. With pre-eclampsia prevalence of 3%, screening is cheaper. (3) The cost per quality of life-adjusted life-year with screening is $18 919 and < $10000 with pre-eclampsia prevalence of 1.7 and 3%, respectively. Conclusions Screening for pre-eclampsia is cost-effective under various scenarios. (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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