Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 10/2015

Open Access 01-10-2015 | Systematic Review

Pre-eclampsia Diagnosis and Treatment Options: A Review of Published Economic Assessments

Authors: Neily Zakiyah, Maarten J. Postma, Philip N. Baker, Antoinette D. I. van Asselt, On behalf of the IMPROvED Consortium

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 10/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy complication affecting both mother and fetus. Although there is no proven effective method to prevent pre-eclampsia, early identification of women at risk of pre-eclampsia could enhance appropriate application of antenatal care, management and treatment. Very little is known about the cost effectiveness of these and other tests for pre-eclampsia, mainly because there is no clear treatment path. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence on the health economics of screening, diagnosis and treatment options in pre-eclampsia.

Methods

We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) for studies on screening, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of pre-eclampsia, published between 1994 and 2014. Only full papers written in English containing complete economic assessments in pre-eclampsia were included.

Results

From an initial total of 138 references, six papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three studies were on the cost effectiveness of treatment of pre-eclampsia, two of which evaluated magnesium sulphate for prevention of seizures and the third evaluated the cost effectiveness of induction of labour versus expectant monitoring. The other three studies were aimed at screening and diagnosis, in combination with subsequent preventive measures. The two studies on magnesium sulphate were equivocal on the cost effectiveness in non-severe cases, and the other study suggested that induction of labour in term pre-eclampsia was more cost effective than expectant monitoring. The screening studies were quite diverse in their objectives as well as in their conclusions. One study concluded that screening is probably not worthwhile, while two other studies stated that in certain scenarios it may be cost effective to screen all pregnant women and prophylactically treat those who are found to be at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia.

Discussion

This study is the first to provide a comprehensive overview on the economic aspects of pre-eclampsia in its broadest sense, ranging from screening to treatment options. The main limitation of the present study lies in the variety of topics in combination with the limited number of papers that could be included; this restricted the comparisons that could be made. In conclusion, novel biomarkers in screening for and diagnosing pre-eclampsia show promise, but their accuracy is a major driver of cost effectiveness, as is prevalence. Universal screening for pre-eclampsia, using a biomarker, will be feasible only when accuracy is significantly increased.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hutcheon JA, Lisonkova S, Joseph KS. Epidemiology of pre-eclampsia and the other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;25(4):391–403.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tuncalp O, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):e323–33.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Ngoc NT, Merialdi M, Abdel-Aleem H, Carroli G, Purwar M, Zavaleta N, et al. Causes of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths: data from 7993 pregnancies in six developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(9):699–705.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
6.
North RA, McCowan LM, Dekker GA, Poston L, Chan EH, Stewart AW, et al. Clinical risk prediction for pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women: development of model in international prospective cohort. BMJ. 2011;7(342):d1875.CrossRef
7.
Audibert F, Boucoiran I, An N, Aleksandrov N, Delvin E, Bujold E, et al. Screening for preeclampsia using first-trimester serum markers and uterine artery Doppler in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):383.e1–8.CrossRef
8.
Poon LC, Maiz N, Valencia C, Plasencia W, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A and pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(1):23–33.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Spencer K, Cowans NJ, Nicolaides KH. Low levels of maternal serum PAPP-A in the first trimester and the risk of pre-eclampsia. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28(1):7–10.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gonen R, Shahar R, Grimpel YI, Chefetz I, Sammar M, Meiri H, et al. Placental protein 13 as an early marker for pre-eclampsia: a prospective longitudinal study. BJOG. 2008;115(12):1465–72.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Romero R, Kusanovic JP, Than NG, Erez O, Gotsch F, Espinoza J, et al. First-trimester maternal serum PP13 in the risk assessment for preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(2):122.e1–11.CrossRef
12.
Baumann MU, Bersinger NA, Mohaupt MG, Raio L, Gerber S, Surbek DV. First-trimester serum levels of soluble endoglin and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 as first-trimester markers for late-onset preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(3):266.e1–6.CrossRef
13.
Kleinrouweler CE, Wiegerinck MM, Ris-Stalpers C, Bossuyt PM, van der Post JA, von Dadelszen P, et al. Accuracy of circulating placental growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 and soluble endoglin in the prediction of pre-eclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2012;119(7):778–87.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kenny LC, Black MA, Poston L, Taylor R, Myers JE, Baker PN, et al. Early pregnancy prediction of preeclampsia in nulliparous women, combining clinical risk and biomarkers: the Screening for Pregnancy Endpoints (SCOPE) international cohort study. Hypertension. 2014;64(3):644–52.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Odibo AO, Goetzinger KR, Odibo L, Cahill AG, Macones GA, Nelson DM, et al. First-trimester prediction of preeclampsia using metabolomic biomarkers: a discovery phase study. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(10):990–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
16.
Kenny LC, Broadhurst DI, Dunn W, Brown M, North RA, McCowan L, et al. Robust early pregnancy prediction of later preeclampsia using metabolomic biomarkers. Hypertension. 2010;56(4):741–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):1122–31.CrossRef
18.
19.
Walter E, Zehetmayr S. Guidelines for health-economic evaluations in Austria. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2006;156(23–24):628–32.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–83.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
21.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
22.
Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, Caro J, Mullins CD, Nuijten M, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Budget Impact Analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):336–47.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;25(346):f1049.CrossRef
25.
Hadker N, Garg S, Costanzo C, Miller JD, Foster T, van der Helm W, et al. Financial impact of a novel pre-eclampsia diagnostic test versus standard practice: a decision-analytic modeling analysis from a UK healthcare payer perspective. J Med Econ. 2010;13(4):728–37.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Meads CA, Cnossen JS, Meher S, Juarez-Garcia A, ter Riet G, Duley L, et al. Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(6):iii-iv, 1–270.
27.
Shmueli A, Meiri H, Gonen R. Economic assessment of screening for pre-eclampsia. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(1):29–38.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Simon J, Gray A, Duley L. Magpie Trial Collaborative Group. Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic magnesium sulphate for 9996 women with pre-eclampsia from 33 countries: economic evaluation of the Magpie trial. BJOG. 2006;113(2):144–51.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Vijgen SM, Koopmans CM, Opmeer BC, Groen H, Bijlenga D, Aarnoudse JG, et al. An economic analysis of induction of labour and expectant monitoring in women with gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia at term (HYPITAT trial). BJOG. 2010;117(13):1577–85.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Blackwell SC, Tomnlinson MW, Berman S, Redman ME, Hassan SS, Berry SM, et al. The use of magnesium sulfate to prevent seizures in the pre-eclamptic gravida: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Prenat Neonatal Med. 2001;6:310.
31.
Akolekar R, Syngelaki A, Sarquis R, Zvanca M, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of early, intermediate and late pre-eclampsia from maternal factors, biophysical and biochemical markers at 11–13 weeks. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(1):66–74.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(1):36.e1–5 discussion 91-2. e7-11.CrossRef
34.
World Health Organization International Collaborative Study of Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. Geographic variation in the incidence of hypertension in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;158(1):80–3.CrossRef
35.
Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force—1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Verlohren S, Galindo A, Schlembach D, Zeisler H, Herraiz I, Moertl MG, et al. An automated method for the determination of the sFlt-1/PIGF ratio in the assessment of preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(2):161.e1–11.CrossRef
37.
Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, Vijgen SM, Aarnoudse JG, Bekedam DJ, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9694):979–88.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Visser GH. Obstetric care in the Netherlands: relic or example? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(10):971–5.PubMed
39.
Altman D, Carroli G, Duley L, Farrell B, Moodley J, Neilson J, et al. Do women with pre-eclampsia, and their babies, benefit from magnesium sulphate? The Magpie trial: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9321):1877–90.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
41.
42.
Park F, Russo K, Williams P, Pelosi M, Puddephatt R, Walter M, et al. Prediction and prevention of early onset pre-eclampsia: the impact of aspirin after first trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015. Epub 2015 Feb 11.
43.
44.
Geelhoed JJ, Fraser A, Tilling K, Benfield L, Davey Smith G, Sattar N, et al. Preeclampsia and gestational hypertension are associated with childhood blood pressure independently of family adiposity measures: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Circulation. 2010;122(12):1192–9.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Boney CM, Verma A, Tucker R, Vohr BR. Metabolic syndrome in childhood: association with birth weight, maternal obesity, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Pediatrics. 2005;115(3):e290–6.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kajantie E, Eriksson JG, Osmond C, Thornburg K, Barker DJ. Pre-eclampsia is associated with increased risk of stroke in the adult offspring: the Helsinki Birth Cohort Study. Stroke. 2009;40(4):1176–80.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Parkinson JR, Hyde MJ, Gale C, Santhakumaran S, Modi N. Preterm birth and the metabolic syndrome in adult life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1240–63.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Washburn L, Nixon P, Russell G, Snively BM, O’Shea TM. Adiposity in adolescent offspring born prematurely to mothers with preeclampsia. J Pediatr. 2013;162(5):912–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
49.
50.
Finucane MM, Stevens GA, Cowan MJ, Danaei G, Lin JK, Paciorek CJ, et al. National, regional, and global trends in body-mass index since 1980: systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 960 country-years and 9.1 million participants. Lancet. 2011;377(9765):557–67.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
51.
Wang YC, McPherson K, Marsh T, Gortmaker SL, Brown M. Health and economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the UK. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):815–25.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Hanson M, Gluckman P. Developmental origins of noncommunicable disease: population and public health implications. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(6 Suppl):1754S–8S.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Gordon FK, Ferguson EL, Toafa V, Henry TE, Goulding A, Grant AM, et al. High levels of childhood obesity observed among 3- to 7-year-old New Zealand Pacific children is a public health concern. J Nutr. 2003;133(11):3456–60.PubMed
54.
May AL, Kuklina EV, Yoon PW. Prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk factors among US adolescents, 1999–2008. Pediatrics. 2012;129(6):1035–41.CrossRefPubMed
55.
56.
Metadata
Title
Pre-eclampsia Diagnosis and Treatment Options: A Review of Published Economic Assessments
Authors
Neily Zakiyah
Maarten J. Postma
Philip N. Baker
Antoinette D. I. van Asselt
On behalf of the IMPROvED Consortium
Publication date
01-10-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 10/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0291-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2015

PharmacoEconomics 10/2015 Go to the issue

Practical Application

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

Practical Application

Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement

Systematic Review

Systematic Literature Review of the Methods Used to Compare Newer Second-Generation Agents for the Management of Schizophrenia: A focus on Health Technology Assessment

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Proton Pump Inhibitor Co-Therapy in Patients Taking Aspirin for Secondary Prevention of Ischemic Stroke

Review Article

A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments for Paediatric Populations

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of the Economic and Humanistic Burden of Gout