Kathryn Coyle1, Amanda My Linh Quan2, Lindsay A Wilson3, Steven Hawken3, A Brianne Bota3, Doug Coyle4, Jeffrey C Murray5, Kumanan Wilson6. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex, United Kingdom. 2. Dalla School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Health Sciences, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex, United Kingdom; Faculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottowa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: kwilson@ohri.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preterm birth complications are the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age, and this imposes a heavy burden on healthcare and social systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where reliable estimates of gestational age may be difficult to obtain. Metabolic analyte data can aid in accurately estimating gestational age. However, important costs are associated with this approach, which are related to the collection and analysis of newborn samples, and its cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an internationally validated gestational age estimation algorithm based on neonatal blood spot metabolite data in combination with clinical and demographic variables (birthweight, sex, and multiple birth status) compared with a basic algorithm that uses only clinical and demographic variables in classifying infants as preterm or term (using a 37-week dichotomous preterm or term classification) and determining gestational age. STUDY DESIGN: The cost per correctly classified preterm infant and per correctly classified small-for-gestational-age infant for the metabolic algorithm vs the basic algorithm were estimated with data from an implementation study in Bangladesh. RESULTS: Over 1 year, the metabolic algorithm correctly classified an average of 8.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.3-14.7) additional preterm infants and 145.3 (95% confidence interval, 128.0-164.7) additional small-for-gestational-age infants per 1323 infants screened compared with the basic algorithm using only clinical and demographic variables. The incremental annual cost of adopting the metabolic algorithm was $100,031 (95% confidence interval, $86,354-$115,725). If setup costs were included, the cost was $120,496 (95% confidence interval, $106,322-$136,656). Compared with the basic algorithm, the incremental cost per preterm infant correctly classified by the metabolic algorithm is $11,542 ($13,903 with setup), and the incremental cost per small-for-gestational-age infant is $688 ($829 with setup). CONCLUSION: This research quantifies the cost per detection of preterm or small-for-gestational-age infant in the implementation of a newborn screening program to aid in improved classification of preterm and, in particular, small-for-gestational-age infants in low- and middle-income countries.
BACKGROUND: Preterm birth complications are the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age, and this imposes a heavy burden on healthcare and social systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where reliable estimates of gestational age may be difficult to obtain. Metabolic analyte data can aid in accurately estimating gestational age. However, important costs are associated with this approach, which are related to the collection and analysis of newborn samples, and its cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an internationally validated gestational age estimation algorithm based on neonatal blood spot metabolite data in combination with clinical and demographic variables (birthweight, sex, and multiple birth status) compared with a basic algorithm that uses only clinical and demographic variables in classifying infants as preterm or term (using a 37-week dichotomous preterm or term classification) and determining gestational age. STUDY DESIGN: The cost per correctly classified preterm infant and per correctly classified small-for-gestational-age infant for the metabolic algorithm vs the basic algorithm were estimated with data from an implementation study in Bangladesh. RESULTS: Over 1 year, the metabolic algorithm correctly classified an average of 8.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.3-14.7) additional preterm infants and 145.3 (95% confidence interval, 128.0-164.7) additional small-for-gestational-age infants per 1323 infants screened compared with the basic algorithm using only clinical and demographic variables. The incremental annual cost of adopting the metabolic algorithm was $100,031 (95% confidence interval, $86,354-$115,725). If setup costs were included, the cost was $120,496 (95% confidence interval, $106,322-$136,656). Compared with the basic algorithm, the incremental cost per preterm infant correctly classified by the metabolic algorithm is $11,542 ($13,903 with setup), and the incremental cost per small-for-gestational-age infant is $688 ($829 with setup). CONCLUSION: This research quantifies the cost per detection of preterm or small-for-gestational-age infant in the implementation of a newborn screening program to aid in improved classification of preterm and, in particular, small-for-gestational-age infants in low- and middle-income countries.
Authors: José Villar; Leila Cheikh Ismail; Cesar G Victora; Eric O Ohuma; Enrico Bertino; Doug G Altman; Ann Lambert; Aris T Papageorghiou; Maria Carvalho; Yasmin A Jaffer; Michael G Gravett; Manorama Purwar; Ihunnaya O Frederick; Alison J Noble; Ruyan Pang; Fernando C Barros; Cameron Chumlea; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Stephen H Kennedy Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joanne Katz; Anne Cc Lee; Naoko Kozuki; Joy E Lawn; Simon Cousens; Hannah Blencowe; Majid Ezzati; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Tanya Marchant; Barbara A Willey; Linda Adair; Fernando Barros; Abdullah H Baqui; Parul Christian; Wafaie Fawzi; Rogelio Gonzalez; Jean Humphrey; Lieven Huybregts; Patrick Kolsteren; Aroonsri Mongkolchati; Luke C Mullany; Richard Ndyomugyenyi; Jyh Kae Nien; David Osrin; Dominique Roberfroid; Ayesha Sania; Christentze Schmiegelow; Mariangela F Silveira; James Tielsch; Anjana Vaidya; Sithembiso C Velaphi; Cesar G Victora; Deborah Watson-Jones; Robert E Black Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Malia Sq Murphy; Steven Hawken; Wei Cheng; Lindsay A Wilson; Monica Lamoureux; Matthew Henderson; Jesmin Pervin; Azad Chowdhury; Courtney Gravett; Eve Lackritz; Beth K Potter; Mark Walker; Julian Little; Anisur Rahman; Pranesh Chakraborty; Kumanan Wilson Journal: Elife Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Kelsey A Stewart; Sergio M Navarro; Sriharsha Kambala; Gail Tan; Revanth Poondla; Sara Lederman; Kelli Barbour; Chris Lavy Journal: Int J MCH AIDS Date: 2020-01-03