Search

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of first trimester non-invasive fetal RHD screening for targeted antenatal versus no routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP) or versus non-targeted RAADP.Design: Model based on a population-based cohort study.Setting: The Swedish health service.Population: Intervention subjects in the underlying cohort study were RhD-negative pregnant women receiving first trimester fetal RHD screening followed by targeted anti-D in 2010-2011 (n = 6723). Historical comparators were RhD-negative women who delivered in 2008-2009 when standard care did not include RAADP (n = 7099).Methods: Healthcare costs for the three strategies were included for the first and subsequent pregnancies. For the comparison with non-targeted RAADP, the immunisation rate was based on the observed rate for targeted therapy and adjusted downwards by removing the influence of false negatives.Main Outcome Measure: Additional cost per RhD immunisation averted.Results: Compared with RAADP, targeted prophylaxis was associated with fewer immunisations (0.19 versus 0.46% per pregnancy) and lower costs (cost-savings of €32 per RhD-negative woman). The savings were from lower costs during pregnancy and delivery, and lower costs of future pregnancies through fewer immunisations. Non-targeted anti-D was estimated to result in 0.06% fewer immunisations and an additional €16 in cost-savings per mother, compared with targeted anti-D.Conclusion: Based on effect data from a population-based cohort study, targeted prophylaxis was associated with lower immunisation risk and costs versus no RAADP. Based on effect data from theoretical calculations, non-targeted RAADP was predicted to result in lower costs and immunisation risk compared with targeted prophylaxis.Tweetable Abstract: Fetal RHD screening and targeted prophylaxis resulted in lower immunisation risk and costs compared with no RAADP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]