Universal Fetal Echocardiography for Pregestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005538
Leah M Savitsky, Caitlin Hamilton, Mary Sterrett, Kelsey Olerich, Kimberly Ma, Catherine M Albright
{"title":"Universal Fetal Echocardiography for Pregestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.","authors":"Leah M Savitsky, Caitlin Hamilton, Mary Sterrett, Kelsey Olerich, Kimberly Ma, Catherine M Albright","doi":"10.1097/AOG.0000000000005538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the cost effectiveness of universal fetal echocardiogram for patients with pregestational diabetes mellitus by first-trimester hemoglobin A 1c (Hb A 1c ) level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a cost-effectiveness model comparing two strategies of screening for critical fetal congenital heart disease among patients with diabetes: universal fetal echocardiogram and fetal echocardiogram only after abnormal findings on detailed anatomy ultrasonogram. We excluded ventricular septal defect, atrial septal defects, and bicuspid aortic valve from the definition of critical fetal congenital heart disease. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios: first-trimester Hb A 1c lower than 6.5%, Hb A 1c 6.5-9.0%, and Hb A 1c higher than 9.0%. Primary outcomes included fetal death, neonatal death, and false-positive and false-negative results. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariable sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the drivers of the model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Universal fetal echocardiogram is not cost effective except for when first-trimester Hb A 1c level is higher than 9.0% (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $638,100, $223,693, and $67,697 for Hb A 1c lower than 6.5%, 6.5-9.0%, and higher than 9.0%, respectively). The models are sensitive to changes in the probability of congenital heart disease at a given Hb A 1c level, as well as the cost of neonatal transfer to a higher level of care. Universal fetal echocardiogram became both cost saving and more effective when the probability of congenital heart disease reached 14.48% (15.4 times the baseline risk). In the Monte Carlo simulation, universal fetal echocardiogram is cost effective in 22.7%, 48.6%, and 62.3% of scenarios for each of the three models, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For pregnant patients with first-trimester Hb A 1c levels lower than 6.5%, universal fetal echocardiogram was not cost effective, whereas, for those with first-trimester Hb A 1c levels higher than 9.0%, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective. For those with intermediate Hb A 1c levels, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective in about 50% of cases; therefore, clinical judgment based on individual patient values, willingness to pay to detect congenital heart disease, and resource availability needs to be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":19483,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"715-724"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005538","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of universal fetal echocardiogram for patients with pregestational diabetes mellitus by first-trimester hemoglobin A 1c (Hb A 1c ) level.

Methods: We developed a cost-effectiveness model comparing two strategies of screening for critical fetal congenital heart disease among patients with diabetes: universal fetal echocardiogram and fetal echocardiogram only after abnormal findings on detailed anatomy ultrasonogram. We excluded ventricular septal defect, atrial septal defects, and bicuspid aortic valve from the definition of critical fetal congenital heart disease. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios: first-trimester Hb A 1c lower than 6.5%, Hb A 1c 6.5-9.0%, and Hb A 1c higher than 9.0%. Primary outcomes included fetal death, neonatal death, and false-positive and false-negative results. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariable sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the drivers of the model.

Results: Universal fetal echocardiogram is not cost effective except for when first-trimester Hb A 1c level is higher than 9.0% (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $638,100, $223,693, and $67,697 for Hb A 1c lower than 6.5%, 6.5-9.0%, and higher than 9.0%, respectively). The models are sensitive to changes in the probability of congenital heart disease at a given Hb A 1c level, as well as the cost of neonatal transfer to a higher level of care. Universal fetal echocardiogram became both cost saving and more effective when the probability of congenital heart disease reached 14.48% (15.4 times the baseline risk). In the Monte Carlo simulation, universal fetal echocardiogram is cost effective in 22.7%, 48.6%, and 62.3% of scenarios for each of the three models, respectively.

Conclusion: For pregnant patients with first-trimester Hb A 1c levels lower than 6.5%, universal fetal echocardiogram was not cost effective, whereas, for those with first-trimester Hb A 1c levels higher than 9.0%, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective. For those with intermediate Hb A 1c levels, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective in about 50% of cases; therefore, clinical judgment based on individual patient values, willingness to pay to detect congenital heart disease, and resource availability needs to be considered.

针对妊娠糖尿病的通用胎儿超声心动图检查:成本效益分析
目的根据妊娠前血红蛋白 A1c(Hb A1c)水平评估妊娠前糖尿病患者接受胎儿超声心动图检查的成本效益:我们建立了一个成本效益模型,比较了在糖尿病患者中筛查临界胎儿先天性心脏病的两种策略:普及胎儿超声心动图检查和仅在详细解剖超声检查发现异常后进行胎儿超声心动图检查。我们将室间隔缺损、房间隔缺损和主动脉瓣双尖瓣排除在危重胎儿先天性心脏病的定义之外。概率和成本来自文献。我们使用单个模型来评估不同的情况:一胎 Hb A1c 低于 6.5%、Hb A1c 6.5-9.0% 和 Hb A1c 高于 9.0%。主要结果包括胎儿死亡、新生儿死亡、假阳性和假阴性结果。成本效益阈值设定为每质量调整生命年 100,000 美元。进行了单变量敏感性分析,以研究模型的驱动因素:结果表明:除一胎 Hb A1c 水平高于 9.0% 外,普及胎儿超声心动图不具成本效益(Hb A1c 低于 6.5%、6.5-9.0% 和高于 9.0% 的增量成本效益比分别为 638,100 美元、223,693 美元和 67,697 美元)。这些模型对特定 Hb A1c 水平下先天性心脏病概率的变化以及新生儿转入更高一级护理的成本非常敏感。当先天性心脏病概率达到 14.48%(基线风险的 15.4 倍)时,普及胎儿超声心动图既能节约成本,又更有效。在蒙特卡洛模拟中,三种模型中分别有 22.7%、48.6% 和 62.3% 的情况下,普及胎儿超声心动图检查具有成本效益:结论:对于初孕期 Hb A1c 水平低于 6.5%的孕妇,普及胎儿超声心动图检查不具成本效益,而对于初孕期 Hb A1c 水平高于 9.0%的孕妇,普及胎儿超声心动图检查具有成本效益。对于 Hb A1c 水平处于中等水平的患者,约 50% 的病例中普及胎儿超声心动图检查具有成本效益;因此,需要根据患者的个人价值观、检测先天性心脏病的支付意愿以及资源可用性进行临床判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Obstetrics and gynecology
Obstetrics and gynecology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
867
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: "Obstetrics & Gynecology," affectionately known as "The Green Journal," is the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Since its inception in 1953, the journal has been dedicated to advancing the clinical practice of obstetrics and gynecology, as well as related fields. The journal's mission is to promote excellence in these areas by publishing a diverse range of articles that cover translational and clinical topics. "Obstetrics & Gynecology" provides a platform for the dissemination of evidence-based research, clinical guidelines, and expert opinions that are essential for the continuous improvement of women's health care. The journal's content is designed to inform and educate obstetricians, gynecologists, and other healthcare professionals, ensuring that they stay abreast of the latest developments and best practices in their field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信