Early cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for preeclampsia in nulliparous women: A modelling approach in European high-income settings.

BACKGROUND

Preeclampsia causes substantial maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality and significant societal economic impact. Effective screening would facilitate timely and appropriate prevention and management of preeclampsia.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an early cost-effectiveness analysis to assess both costs and health outcomes of a new screening test for preeclampsia from a healthcare payer perspective, in the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden.

METHODS

A decision tree over a 9-month time horizon was developed to explore the cost-effectiveness of the new screening test for preeclampsia compared to the current screening strategy. The new test strategy is being developed so that it can stratify healthy low risk nulliparous women early in pregnancy to either a high-risk group with a risk of 1 in 6 or more of developing preeclampsia, or a low-risk group with a risk of 1 in 100 or less. The model simulated 25 plausible scenarios in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 pregnant women, in which the sensitivity and specificity of the new test were varied to set a benchmark for the minimum test performance that is needed for the test to become cost-effective. The input parameters and costs were mainly derived from published literature. The main outcome was incremental costs per preeclampsia case averted, expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Base case results showed that the new test strategy would be more effective and less costly compared to the current situation in the UK. In the Netherlands, the majority of scenarios would be cost-effective from a threshold of €50,000 per preeclampsia case averted, while in Ireland and Sweden, the vast majority of scenarios would be considered cost-effective only when a threshold of €100,000 was used. In the best case analyses, ICERs were more favourable in all four participating countries. Aspirin effectiveness, prevalence of preeclampsia, accuracy of the new screening test and cost of regular antenatal care were identified as driving factors for the cost-effectiveness of screening for preeclampsia.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the new screening test for preeclampsia has potential to be cost-effective. Further studies based on proven accuracy of the test will confirm whether the new screening test is a cost-effective additional option to the current situation.