Back to Search Start Over

Costs and benefits of non-invasive fetal RhD determination.

Authors :
Teitelbaum L
Metcalfe A
Clarke G
Parboosingh JS
Wilson RD
Johnson JM
Source :
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology [Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol] 2015 Jan; Vol. 45 (1), pp. 84-8.
Publication Year :
2015

Abstract

Objective: Non-invasive fetal Rhesus (Rh) D genotyping, using cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in the maternal blood, allows targeted antenatal anti-RhD prophylaxis in unsensitized RhD-negative pregnant women. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost and benefit of this approach as compared to routine antenatal anti-RhD prophylaxis for all unsensitized RhD-negative pregnant women, as is the current policy in the province of Alberta, Canada.<br />Methods: This study was a decision analysis based on a theoretical population representing the total number of pregnancies in Alberta over a 1-year period (nā€‰=ā€‰69ā€‰286). A decision tree was created that outlined targeted prophylaxis for unsensitized RhD-negative pregnant women screened for cffDNA (targeted group) vs routine prophylaxis for all unsensitized RhD-negative pregnant women (routine group). Probabilities at each decision point and costs associated with each resource were calculated from local clinical and administrative data. Outcomes measured were cost, number of women sensitized and doses of Rh immunoglobulin (RhIG) administered.<br />Results: The estimated cost per pregnancy for the routine group was 71.43 compared with 67.20 Canadian dollars in the targeted group. The sensitization rates per RhD-negative pregnancy were equal, at 0.0012, for the current and targeted programs. Implementing targeted antenatal anti-RhD prophylaxis would save 4072 doses (20.1%) of RhIG over a 1-year period in Alberta when compared to the current program.<br />Conclusions: These data support the feasibility of a targeted antenatal anti-RhD prophylaxis program, at a lower cost than that of the existing routine prophylaxis program, with no increased risk of sensitization.<br /> (Copyright © 2014 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1469-0705
Volume :
45
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
25380024
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14723