Matthew J Glasgow1, Jane E Harding1, Richard Edlin2. 1. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Babies at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia are often screened using cot-side glucometers, but non-enzymatic glucometers are inaccurate, potentially resulting in over-treatment and under-treatment, and low values require laboratory confirmation. More accurate enzymatic glucometers are available but at apparently higher costs. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the cost of screening for neonatal hypoglycaemia using point-of-care enzymatic and non-enzymatic glucometers. METHODS: We used a decision tree to model costs, including consumables and staff time. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of staff time, staff costs, probability that low results are confirmed via laboratory testing, false-positive and false-negative rates of non-enzymatic glucometers, and the blood glucose concentration threshold. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, screening using an enzymatic glucometer cost NZD 86.94 (USD 63.47) while using a non-enzymatic glucometer cost NZD 97.08 (USD 70.87) per baby. Sensitivity analyses showed that using an enzymatic glucometer is cost saving with wide variations in staff time and costs, irrespective of the false-positive level of non-enzymatic glucometers, and where ≥78% of low values are laboratory confirmed. Where non-enzymatic glucometers may be less costly (e.g., false-negative rate exceeds 15%), instances of hypoglycaemia will be missed. Reducing the blood glucose concentration threshold to 1.94 mmol/L reduced the incidence of hypoglycaemia from 52 to 13%, and the cost of screening using a non-enzymatic glucometer to NZD 47.71 (USD 34.83). CONCLUSIONS: In view of their lower cost in most circumstances and greater accuracy, enzymatic glucometers should be routinely utilised for point-of-care screening for neonatal hypoglycaemia.
BACKGROUND: Babies at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia are often screened using cot-side glucometers, but non-enzymatic glucometers are inaccurate, potentially resulting in over-treatment and under-treatment, and low values require laboratory confirmation. More accurate enzymatic glucometers are available but at apparently higher costs. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the cost of screening for neonatal hypoglycaemia using point-of-care enzymatic and non-enzymatic glucometers. METHODS: We used a decision tree to model costs, including consumables and staff time. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of staff time, staff costs, probability that low results are confirmed via laboratory testing, false-positive and false-negative rates of non-enzymatic glucometers, and the blood glucose concentration threshold. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, screening using an enzymatic glucometer cost NZD 86.94 (USD 63.47) while using a non-enzymatic glucometer cost NZD 97.08 (USD 70.87) per baby. Sensitivity analyses showed that using an enzymatic glucometer is cost saving with wide variations in staff time and costs, irrespective of the false-positive level of non-enzymatic glucometers, and where ≥78% of low values are laboratory confirmed. Where non-enzymatic glucometers may be less costly (e.g., false-negative rate exceeds 15%), instances of hypoglycaemia will be missed. Reducing the blood glucose concentration threshold to 1.94 mmol/L reduced the incidence of hypoglycaemia from 52 to 13%, and the cost of screening using a non-enzymatic glucometer to NZD 47.71 (USD 34.83). CONCLUSIONS: In view of their lower cost in most circumstances and greater accuracy, enzymatic glucometers should be routinely utilised for point-of-care screening for neonatal hypoglycaemia.
Authors: Jorien M Kerstjens; Inger F Bocca-Tjeertes; Andrea F de Winter; Sijmen A Reijneveld; Arend F Bos Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Hüseyin Caksen; Ahmet Sami Güven; Cahide Yilmaz; Ozkan Unal; Murat Basaranoglu; Ertan Sal; Avni Kaya Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2010-06-04 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: M Cornblath; J M Hawdon; A F Williams; A Aynsley-Green; M P Ward-Platt; R Schwartz; S C Kalhan Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 7.124