BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023
First trimester screening for pre-eclampsia and targeted aspirin prophylaxis: a cost-effectiveness cohort study.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nzelu Diane, Palmer Tom, Stott Daniel, Pandya Pranav, Napolitano Raffaele, Casagrandi Davide, Ammari Christina, Hillman Sara
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Investigate cost-effectiveness of first trimester pre-eclampsia screening using the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) algorithm and targeted aspirin prophylaxis in comparison with standard care.
DESIGN: Retrospective observational study.
SETTING: London tertiary hospital.
POPULATION: 5957 pregnancies screened for pre-eclampsia using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) method.
METHODS: Differences in pregnancy outcomes between those who developed pre-eclampsia, term pre-eclampsia and preterm pre-eclampsia were compared by the Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square tests. The FMF algorithm was applied retrospectively to the cohort. A decision analytic model was used to estimate costs and outcomes for pregnancies screened using NICE and those screened using the FMF algorithm. The decision point probabilities were calculated using the included cohort.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental healthcare costs and QALY gained per pregnancy screened.
RESULTS: Of 5957 pregnancies, 12.8% and 15.9% were screen-positive for development of pre-eclampsia using the NICE and FMF methods, respectively. Of those who were screen-positive by NICE recommendations, aspirin was not prescribed in 25%. Across the three groups, namely, pregnancies without pre-eclampsia, term pre-eclampsia and preterm pre-eclampsia there was a statistically significant trend in rates of emergency caesarean (respectively 21%, 43% and 71.4%; P < 0.001), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (5.9%, 9.4%, 41%; P < 0.001) and length of stay in NICU. The FMF algorithm was associated with seven fewer cases of preterm pre-eclampsia, cost saving of £9.06 and QALY gain of 0.00006/pregnancy screened.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a conservative approach, application of the FMF algorithm achieved clinical benefit and an economic cost saving.
DESIGN: Retrospective observational study.
SETTING: London tertiary hospital.
POPULATION: 5957 pregnancies screened for pre-eclampsia using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) method.
METHODS: Differences in pregnancy outcomes between those who developed pre-eclampsia, term pre-eclampsia and preterm pre-eclampsia were compared by the Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square tests. The FMF algorithm was applied retrospectively to the cohort. A decision analytic model was used to estimate costs and outcomes for pregnancies screened using NICE and those screened using the FMF algorithm. The decision point probabilities were calculated using the included cohort.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental healthcare costs and QALY gained per pregnancy screened.
RESULTS: Of 5957 pregnancies, 12.8% and 15.9% were screen-positive for development of pre-eclampsia using the NICE and FMF methods, respectively. Of those who were screen-positive by NICE recommendations, aspirin was not prescribed in 25%. Across the three groups, namely, pregnancies without pre-eclampsia, term pre-eclampsia and preterm pre-eclampsia there was a statistically significant trend in rates of emergency caesarean (respectively 21%, 43% and 71.4%; P < 0.001), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (5.9%, 9.4%, 41%; P < 0.001) and length of stay in NICU. The FMF algorithm was associated with seven fewer cases of preterm pre-eclampsia, cost saving of £9.06 and QALY gain of 0.00006/pregnancy screened.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a conservative approach, application of the FMF algorithm achieved clinical benefit and an economic cost saving.