4.2 Article

Prospective epidemiologic study of the outcome and cost-effectiveness of antenatal screening to detect neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia due to anti-HPA-1a

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 45, 期 12, 页码 1945-1956

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.00645.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: To assess the value of antenatal screening to detect neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia (NAIT) due to anti-HPA-1a, a prospective study was carried out to quantify the potential clinical benefits and determine whether screening would be cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An observational prospective controlled study was carried out on 26,506 pregnant women over 2 years. HPA-1a phenotyping was performed in the first trimester and women confirmed HPA-1a-negative were tested for anti-HPA-1a during pregnancy, at delivery, and 10 to 14 days after birth. Babies of HPA-1a-negative women were tested at delivery for thrombocytopenia and examined for signs of bleeding. Economic evaluation was undertaken on the basis of the data collected during the study. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 318 women (7.9%) had anti-HPA-1a detected for the first time. Eight women (43 per 100,000) gave birth to babies with NAIT, and 5 (27 per 100,000) had severe thrombocytopenia. Three babies had mild signs of bleeding, and no cases of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) or fetal loss were detected. It is estimated that it would cost 60,596 pound (US$98,771) to detect a case of severe NAIT, where anti-HPA-1a has been identified for the first time, and 1,151,323 pound (US$1,876,656) to prevent a case of ICH, assuming that detection allowed successful intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that severe HPA-1a NAIT is underdiagnosed in the absence of routine antenatal screening. Serious bleeding complications and ICH, however, occur less frequently in first cases of NAIT than suspected from the literature, and the costs of screening and possible intervention must be balanced against the procedural risks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据