OBJECTIVE: To determine whether routine measurement of second-trimester transvaginal cervical length by ultrasound in low-risk singleton pregnancies is a cost-effective strategy. METHODS: We developed a decision analysis model to compare the cost-effectiveness of two strategies for identifying pregnancies at risk for preterm birth: (1) no routine cervical length screening and (2) a single routine transvaginal cervical length measurement at 18-24 weeks' gestation. In our model, women identified as being at increased risk (cervical length < 1.5 cm) for preterm birth would be offered daily vaginal progesterone supplementation. We assumed that vaginal progesterone reduces preterm birth at < 34 weeks' gestation by 45%. We also assumed that a decreased cervical length could result in additional costs (ultrasound scans, inpatient admission) without significantly improved neonatal outcomes. The main outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Our model predicts that routine cervical-length screening is a dominant strategy when compared to routine care. For every 100,000 women screened, $12,119,947 can be potentially saved (in 2010 US dollars) and 423.9 quality-adjusted life-years could be gained. Additionally, we estimate that 22 cases of neonatal death or long-term neurologic deficits could be prevented per 100,000 women screened. Screening remained cost-effective but was no longer the dominant strategy when cervical-length ultrasound measurement costs exceeded $187 or when vaginal progesterone reduced delivery risk at < 34 weeks by less than 20%. CONCLUSION: In low-risk pregnancies, universal transvaginal cervical length ultrasound screening appears to be a cost-effective strategy under a wide range of clinical circumstances (varied preterm birth rates, predictive values of a shortened cervix and costs).
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether routine measurement of second-trimester transvaginal cervical length by ultrasound in low-risk singleton pregnancies is a cost-effective strategy. METHODS: We developed a decision analysis model to compare the cost-effectiveness of two strategies for identifying pregnancies at risk for preterm birth: (1) no routine cervical length screening and (2) a single routine transvaginal cervical length measurement at 18-24 weeks' gestation. In our model, women identified as being at increased risk (cervical length < 1.5 cm) for preterm birth would be offered daily vaginal progesterone supplementation. We assumed that vaginal progesterone reduces preterm birth at < 34 weeks' gestation by 45%. We also assumed that a decreased cervical length could result in additional costs (ultrasound scans, inpatient admission) without significantly improved neonatal outcomes. The main outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Our model predicts that routine cervical-length screening is a dominant strategy when compared to routine care. For every 100,000 women screened, $12,119,947 can be potentially saved (in 2010 US dollars) and 423.9 quality-adjusted life-years could be gained. Additionally, we estimate that 22 cases of neonatal death or long-term neurologic deficits could be prevented per 100,000 women screened. Screening remained cost-effective but was no longer the dominant strategy when cervical-length ultrasound measurement costs exceeded $187 or when vaginal progesterone reduced delivery risk at < 34 weeks by less than 20%. CONCLUSION: In low-risk pregnancies, universal transvaginal cervical length ultrasound screening appears to be a cost-effective strategy under a wide range of clinical circumstances (varied preterm birth rates, predictive values of a shortened cervix and costs).
Authors: Roberto Romero; Kypros Nicolaides; Agustin Conde-Agudelo; Ann Tabor; John M O'Brien; Elcin Cetingoz; Eduardo Da Fonseca; George W Creasy; Katharina Klein; Line Rode; Priya Soma-Pillay; Shalini Fusey; Cetin Cam; Zarko Alfirevic; Sonia S Hassan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-12-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lorene A Temming; Jennifer K Durst; Methodius G Tuuli; Molly J Stout; Jeffrey M Dicke; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Laura T Pizzi; Neil S Seligman; Jason K Baxter; Eric Jutkowitz; Vincenzo Berghella Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Barbara L McFarlin; Viksit Kumar; Timothy A Bigelow; Douglas G Simpson; Rosemary C White-Traut; Jacques S Abramowicz; William D O'Brien Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 2.998