Cost-consequence analysis of a combined COVID-19/influenza rapid diagnostic test in the Brazilian private healthcare setting.

Combination COVID-19/influenza rapid tests provides a way to quickly and accurately differentiate between the two infections. The goal of this economic evaluation was to assess the cost and health benefits of a combination COVID-19/influenza Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) vs. current standard-of-care in the Brazilian private healthcare setting. A dual decision tree model was developed to estimate the impact of rapid differentiation of COVID-19 and influenza in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 adults with influenza-like illness in an ambulatory healthcare setting. The model compared the use of a combination COVID-19/influenza RDT to Brazil standard diagnostic practice of a COVID-19 RDT and presumptive influenza diagnosis. Different levels of influenza prevalence was modeled with co-infection estimated as a function of the COVID-19 prevalence. Outcomes included accuracy of diagnosis, antiviral prescriptions and healthcare resource use (hospital bed days and ICU occupancy). Depending on influenza prevalence, considering 1,000 patients with influenza-like illness, a combination RDT compared to standard practice was estimated to result in between 88 and 149 fewer missed diagnoses of influenza (including co-infection), 161 to 185 fewer cases of over-diagnosis of influenza; a 24 % to 34 % reduction in hospital bed days and a 16 % to 26 % reduction in ICU days. In the base case scenario (20 % influenza, 5 % COVID-19), the combination RDT was estimated to result in cohort cost savings of $99. Based upon a de novo economic model, this analysis indicates that use of a combination RDT could positively impact influenza antiviral prescriptions and lower healthcare resource use.

Late Pregnancy Ultrasound to Screen for and Manage Potential Birth Complications in Nulliparous Women: A Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction is a major risk factor for stillbirth. A routine late-pregnancy ultrasound scan could help detect this, allowing intervention to reduce the risk of stillbirth. Such a scan could also detect fetal presentation and predict macrosomia. A trial powered to detect stillbirth differences would be extremely large and expensive. OBJECTIVES: It is therefore critical to know whether this would be a good investment of public research funds. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various late-pregnancy screening and management strategies based on current information and predict the return on investment from further research. METHODS: Synthesis of current evidence structured into a decision model reporting expected costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and net benefit over 20 years and value-of-information analysis reporting predicted return on investment from future clinical trials. RESULTS: Given a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the most cost-effective strategy is a routine presentation-only scan for all women. Universal ultrasound screening for fetal size is unlikely to be cost-effective. Research exploring the cost implications of induction of labor has the greatest predicted return on investment. A randomized, controlled trial with an endpoint of stillbirth is extremely unlikely to be a value for money investment. CONCLUSION: Given current value-for-money thresholds in the United Kingdom, the most cost-effective strategy is to offer all pregnant women a presentation-only scan in late pregnancy. A randomized, controlled trial of screening and intervention to reduce the risk of stillbirth following universal ultrasound to detect macrosomia or fetal growth restriction is unlikely to represent a value for money investment.

Universal late pregnancy ultrasound screening to predict adverse outcomes in nulliparous women: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, pregnant women are screened using ultrasound to perform gestational aging, typically at around 12 weeks' gestation, and around the middle of pregnancy. Ultrasound scans thereafter are performed for clinical indications only. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the case for offering universal late pregnancy ultrasound to all nulliparous women in the UK. The main questions addressed were the diagnostic effectiveness of universal late pregnancy ultrasound to predict adverse outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of either implementing universal ultrasound or conducting further research in this area. DESIGN: We performed diagnostic test accuracy reviews of five ultrasonic measurements in late pregnancy. We conducted cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses of screening for fetal presentation, screening for small for gestational age fetuses and screening for large for gestational age fetuses. Finally, we conducted a survey and a focus group to determine the willingness of women to participate in a future randomised controlled trial. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 2019. REVIEW METHODS: The protocol for the review was designed a priori and registered. Eligible studies were identified using keywords, with no restrictions for language or location. The risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Health economic modelling employed a decision tree analysed via Monte Carlo simulation. Health outcomes were from the fetal perspective and presented as quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were from the perspective of the public sector, defined as NHS England, and the costs of special educational needs. All costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted by 3.5% per annum and the reference case time horizon was 20 years. RESULTS: Umbilical artery Doppler flow velocimetry, cerebroplacental ratio, severe oligohydramnios and borderline oligohydramnios were all either non-predictive or weakly predictive of the risk of neonatal morbidity (summary positive likelihood ratios between 1 and 2) and were all weakly predictive of the risk of delivering a small for gestational age infant (summary positive likelihood ratios between 2 and 4). Suspicion of fetal macrosomia is strongly predictive of the risk of delivering a large infant, but it is only weakly, albeit statistically significantly, predictive of the risk of shoulder dystocia. Very few studies blinded the result of the ultrasound scan and most studies were rated as being at a high risk of bias as a result of treatment paradox, ascertainment bias or iatrogenic harm. Health economic analysis indicated that universal ultrasound for fetal presentation only may be both clinically and economically justified on the basis of existing evidence. Universal ultrasound including fetal biometry was of borderline cost-effectiveness and was sensitive to assumptions. Value-of-information analysis indicated that the parameter that had the largest impact on decision uncertainty was the net difference in cost between an induced delivery and expectant management. LIMITATIONS: The primary literature on the diagnostic effectiveness of ultrasound in late pregnancy is weak. Value-of-information analysis may have underestimated the uncertainty in the literature as it was focused on the internal validity of parameters, which is quantified, whereas the greatest uncertainty may be in the external validity to the research question, which is unquantified. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for presentation at term may be justified on the basis of current knowledge. The current literature does not support universal ultrasonic screening for fetal growth disorders. FUTURE WORK: We describe proof-of-principle randomised controlled trials that could better inform the case for screening using ultrasound in late pregnancy. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017064093. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Ultrasound scans allow doctors to check on the health of an unborn infant. Usually, all pregnant women receive a scan at about 3 months and about 5 months of pregnancy. After that, women are offered a scan during birth only if they have risk factors or if a problem develops. Problems can arise in the later stages of pregnancy, including issues with the infant's growth or whether or not the infant is breech. Some of these problems may be prevented if a scan is carried out, but scans can also be inaccurate. When they are, a woman may receive unnecessary treatment, which could even harm her or her infant. In this study we set out to review previous research about how good ultrasound scanning is at detecting infants who may be born with a condition. This study focused on detecting if the infant was too big or too small. Unfortunately, much of the previous research was not carried out to a high standard. Scanning can detect the size of a infant relatively well, but it is much less clear if scanning can predict complications that may harm the infant during birth. We also studied the costs and outcomes of scanning. We calculated the extra cost required to scan every woman and compared this with the extra benefits from preventing complications. One thing that ultrasound scans detect is whether the infant is presenting head first or bottom first (a 'breech presentation'), as infants presenting breech have high risks of complications. Scanning all women to check whether or not their infant is presenting breech seems to be cost-effective and the cost savings may even be higher than the cost of implementation, although this depends on how much the scan would cost. Whether or not it is worthwhile scanning all infants to see if they are above or below the thresholds for normal size is less clear. A larger research study could provide more reliable numbers from which to draw a conclusion. We show how such a study could be designed, so that a single study could tell us both how well scans can predict adverse outcomes and how helpful this information is.

Screening for breech presentation using universal late-pregnancy ultrasonography: A prospective cohort study and cost effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the relative ease with which breech presentation can be identified through ultrasound screening, the assessment of foetal presentation at term is often based on clinical examination only. Due to limitations in this approach, many women present in labour with an undiagnosed breech presentation, with increased risk of foetal morbidity and mortality. This study sought to determine the cost effectiveness of universal ultrasound scanning for breech presentation near term (36 weeks of gestational age [wkGA]) in nulliparous women. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study was a prospective cohort study between January 14, 2008 and July 31, 2012, including 3,879 nulliparous women who attended for a research screening ultrasound examination at 36 wkGA. Foetal presentation was assessed and compared for the groups with and without a clinically indicated ultrasound. Where breech presentation was detected, an external cephalic version (ECV) was routinely offered. If the ECV was unsuccessful or not performed, the women were offered either planned cesarean section at 39 weeks or attempted vaginal breech delivery. To compare the likelihood of different mode of deliveries and associated long-term health outcomes for universal ultrasound to current practice, a probabilistic economic simulation model was constructed. Parameter values were obtained from the POP study, and costs were mainly obtained from the English National Health Service (NHS). One hundred seventy-nine out of 3,879 women (4.6%) were diagnosed with breech presentation at 36 weeks. For most women (96), there had been no prior suspicion of noncephalic presentation. ECV was attempted for 84 (46.9%) women and was successful in 12 (success rate: 14.3%). Overall, 19 of the 179 women delivered vaginally (10.6%), 110 delivered by elective cesarean section (ELCS) (61.5%) and 50 delivered by emergency cesarean section (EMCS) (27.9%). There were no women with undiagnosed breech presentation in labour in the entire cohort. On average, 40 scans were needed per detection of a previously undiagnosed breech presentation. The economic analysis indicated that, compared to current practice, universal late-pregnancy ultrasound would identify around 14,826 otherwise undiagnosed breech presentations across England annually. It would also reduce EMCS and vaginal breech deliveries by 0.7 and 1.0 percentage points, respectively: around 4,196 and 6,061 deliveries across England annually. Universal ultrasound would also prevent 7.89 neonatal mortalities annually. The strategy would be cost effective if foetal presentation could be assessed for £19.80 or less per woman. Limitations to this study included that foetal presentation was revealed to all women and that the health economic analysis may be altered by parity. CONCLUSIONS: According to our estimates, universal late pregnancy ultrasound in nulliparous women (1) would virtually eliminate undiagnosed breech presentation, (2) would be expected to reduce foetal mortality in breech presentation, and (3) would be cost effective if foetal presentation could be assessed for less than £19.80 per woman.