Prenatal Screening for CMV Primary Infection: A Cost-Utility Model

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Gebrael El Hachem, Thomas G. Poder, Catherine Mc Carey, Soren Gantt, Fatima Kakkar, Marc Sab, Christian Renaud, Isabelle Boucoiran
{"title":"Prenatal Screening for CMV Primary Infection: A Cost-Utility Model","authors":"Gebrael El Hachem,&nbsp;Thomas G. Poder,&nbsp;Catherine Mc Carey,&nbsp;Soren Gantt,&nbsp;Fatima Kakkar,&nbsp;Marc Sab,&nbsp;Christian Renaud,&nbsp;Isabelle Boucoiran","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.18080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major cause of deafness and neurodevelopmental disability in children. Our objective was to assess the cost utility of first-trimester serological CMV screening, compared to screening of high-risk pregnancies and no serological screening.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A decision-analytic model was created to compare the cost utility of three strategies from a healthcare sector perspective: universal first-trimester serological screening, screening only of high-risk pregnant women (both including antiviral prophylaxis in cases of primary infection) and serological testing triggered by foetal morphological ultrasound (no CMV serological screening).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>Canada.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Population</h3>\n \n <p>Hypothetical population of 80 000 pregnant women.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Probability, expected values and cost estimates were derived from published literature and local hospital and national insurance data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Outcome Measure</h3>\n \n <p>Cost per maternal and infant quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Universal serological screening was superior to both screening of high-risk women and no screening (utility of −0.42, −0.63 and − 0.87 QALY lost, respectively). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that universal screening was the most cost-effective strategy regardless of the incidence of primary infection, the acceptability of amniocentesis and the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis. In the Monte Carlo analyses, universal serological screening was the most cost-effective option in 96.36% of simulations. Universal serological screening would allow detection of 152 cases of primary maternal CMV infection and would prevent 29 cases of congenital CMV infection annually.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings support the adoption of a population-based prenatal screening programme for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 6","pages":"805-815"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.18080","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.18080","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major cause of deafness and neurodevelopmental disability in children. Our objective was to assess the cost utility of first-trimester serological CMV screening, compared to screening of high-risk pregnancies and no serological screening.

Design

A decision-analytic model was created to compare the cost utility of three strategies from a healthcare sector perspective: universal first-trimester serological screening, screening only of high-risk pregnant women (both including antiviral prophylaxis in cases of primary infection) and serological testing triggered by foetal morphological ultrasound (no CMV serological screening).

Setting

Canada.

Population

Hypothetical population of 80 000 pregnant women.

Methods

Probability, expected values and cost estimates were derived from published literature and local hospital and national insurance data.

Main Outcome Measure

Cost per maternal and infant quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost.

Results

Universal serological screening was superior to both screening of high-risk women and no screening (utility of −0.42, −0.63 and − 0.87 QALY lost, respectively). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that universal screening was the most cost-effective strategy regardless of the incidence of primary infection, the acceptability of amniocentesis and the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis. In the Monte Carlo analyses, universal serological screening was the most cost-effective option in 96.36% of simulations. Universal serological screening would allow detection of 152 cases of primary maternal CMV infection and would prevent 29 cases of congenital CMV infection annually.

Conclusion

Our findings support the adoption of a population-based prenatal screening programme for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.

Abstract Image

巨细胞病毒原发感染的产前筛查:成本-效用模型
先天性巨细胞病毒(CMV)感染是儿童耳聋和神经发育障碍的主要原因。我们的目的是评估妊娠早期血清学巨细胞病毒筛查与高危妊娠筛查和无血清学筛查的成本效用。
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
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
5.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.
×
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