Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Obstetrics & Gynaecology Unit, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
BJOG. 2016 Jul;123(8):1337-46. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13801. Epub 2015 Dec 10.
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of first trimester non-invasive fetal RHD screening for targeted antenatal versus no routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP) or versus non-targeted RAADP.
Model based on a population-based cohort study.
The Swedish health service.
Intervention subjects in the underlying cohort study were RhD-negative pregnant women receiving first trimester fetal RHD screening followed by targeted anti-D in 2010-2011 (n = 6723). Historical comparators were RhD-negative women who delivered in 2008-2009 when standard care did not include RAADP (n = 7099).
Healthcare costs for the three strategies were included for the first and subsequent pregnancies. For the comparison with non-targeted RAADP, the immunisation rate was based on the observed rate for targeted therapy and adjusted downwards by removing the influence of false negatives.
Additional cost per RhD immunisation averted.
Compared with RAADP, targeted prophylaxis was associated with fewer immunisations (0.19 versus 0.46% per pregnancy) and lower costs (cost-savings of €32 per RhD-negative woman). The savings were from lower costs during pregnancy and delivery, and lower costs of future pregnancies through fewer immunisations. Non-targeted anti-D was estimated to result in 0.06% fewer immunisations and an additional €16 in cost-savings per mother, compared with targeted anti-D.
Based on effect data from a population-based cohort study, targeted prophylaxis was associated with lower immunisation risk and costs versus no RAADP. Based on effect data from theoretical calculations, non-targeted RAADP was predicted to result in lower costs and immunisation risk compared with targeted prophylaxis.
Fetal RHD screening and targeted prophylaxis resulted in lower immunisation risk and costs compared with no RAADP.
评估在妊娠早期进行非侵入性胎儿 RhD 筛查,以针对目标人群进行产前抗-D 预防(RAADP),与不进行常规产前抗-D 预防(RAADP)或非针对性 RAADP 相比,其成本效益。
基于基于人群的队列研究的模型。
瑞典卫生服务。
基础队列研究中的干预对象为 RhD 阴性孕妇,于 2010-2011 年接受妊娠早期胎儿 RhD 筛查,随后接受靶向抗-D(n=6723)。历史对照为 2008-2009 年分娩的 RhD 阴性女性,当时标准护理不包括 RAADP(n=7099)。
纳入三种策略的医疗保健成本,包括第一胎和后续妊娠。对于与非靶向 RAADP 的比较,免疫率基于靶向治疗的观察到的比率,并通过去除假阴性的影响进行向下调整。
避免每例 RhD 免疫的额外成本。
与 RAADP 相比,靶向预防与较少的免疫接种(每妊娠 0.19%对 0.46%)和较低的成本(每 RhD 阴性女性节省 32 欧元)相关。节省来自妊娠和分娩期间的较低成本,以及通过减少免疫接种而降低未来妊娠的成本。与靶向抗-D 相比,非靶向抗-D 估计每例母亲减少 0.06%的免疫接种,并节省 16 欧元的成本。
基于基于人群的队列研究的效果数据,与不进行 RAADP 相比,靶向预防与较低的免疫接种风险和成本相关。基于理论计算的效果数据,与靶向预防相比,非靶向 RAADP 预计会降低成本和免疫接种风险。
与不进行 RAADP 相比,胎儿 RhD 筛查和靶向预防可降低免疫接种风险和成本。