OBJECTIVE: Pre-eclampsia (PE) remains a leading cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. A first-trimester screening algorithm predicting the risk of early-onset PE has been developed and validated. Early prediction coupled with initiation of aspirin at 11-13 weeks in women identified as high risk is effective at reducing the prevalence of early-onset PE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this first-trimester screening program coupled with early use of low-dose aspirin in women at high risk of developing early-onset PE, in comparison to current practice in Canada. METHODS: A decision analysis was performed based on a theoretical population of 387 516 live births in Canada in 1 year. The clinical and financial impact of early preventative screening using the Fetal Medicine Foundation algorithm for prediction of early-onset PE coupled with early (< 16 weeks) use of low-dose aspirin in those at high risk was simulated and compared with current practice using decision-tree analysis. The probabilities at each decision point and associated costs of utilized resources were calculated based on published literature and public databases. RESULTS: Of the theoretical 387 516 births per year, the estimated prevalence of early PE based on first-trimester screening and aspirin use was 705 vs 1801 cases based on the current practice. This was associated with an estimated total cost of C$9.52 million with the first-trimester screening program compared with C$23.91 million with current practice for the diagnosis and management of women with early-onset PE. This equals an annual cost saving to the Canadian healthcare system of approximately C$14.39 million. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a first-trimester screening program for PE and early intervention with aspirin in women identified as high risk for early PE has the potential to prevent a significant number of early-onset PE cases with a substantial associated cost saving to the healthcare system in Canada.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ortved et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: