Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 6, 2025
Author Spotlight: Cost-Effective Transcriptomic Drug Screening - Unlocking New Targets
Published on: February 23, 2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing screening on preterm pre-eclampsia at first trimester of pregnancy in
Janne C Mewes1, Melanie Lindenberg1, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef1,2
1Panaxea b.v., Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands.
Insights
Preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening is cost-effective in Switzerland and shows potential in Germany. This study evaluated PE screening versus routine methods, finding significant cost savings in Switzerland and a high probability of cost-effectiveness in Germany.
Area of Science:
- Health economics
- Obstetrics
- Public health
Background:
- Preeclampsia (PE) poses significant risks, necessitating effective screening strategies.
- Current screening relies on maternal characteristics, but its cost-effectiveness compared to targeted PE screening is debated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening against routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland.
Main Methods:
- A health economic model was employed, analyzing costs from a healthcare perspective over one year.
- Key outcomes included incremental healthcare costs and costs per averted PE case.
Main Results:
- PE screening incurred minimal additional costs (€14/woman) in Germany, with costs per averted case at €3,795.
- In Switzerland, PE screening was cost-saving (-CHF42/woman) and dominant.
- Sensitivity analyses identified screening costs and preterm PE probability as key factors.
Conclusions:
- PE screening is cost-saving in Switzerland and demonstrates a high probability of cost-effectiveness in Germany, particularly at a willingness-to-pay of €4,200 per averted case.
- Further research with longer time horizons is recommended for comprehensive cost-effectiveness evaluation.
Objective:
To assess the cost-effectiveness of preterm preeclampsia (PE) screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics in Germany and Switzerland.
Methods:
A health economic model was used to analyse the cost-effectiveness of PE screening versus routine screening based on maternal characteristics. The analysis was conducted from the healthcare perspective with a time horizon of one year from the start of pregnancy. The main outcome measures were incremental health care costs and incremental costs per PE case averted.
Results:
The incremental health care costs for PE screening versus routine screening per woman were €14 in Germany, and -CHF42 in Switzerland, the latter representing cost savings. In Germany, the incremental costs per PE case averted were €3,795. In Switzerland, PE screening was dominant. The most influential parameter in the one-way sensitivity analysis was the cost of PE screening (Germany) and the probability of preterm PE in routine screening (Switzerland). In Germany, at a willingness-to-pay for one PE case avoided of €4,200, PE screening had a probability of more than 50% of being cost-effective compared to routine screening. In Switzerland, at a willingness-to-pay of CHF0, PE screening had a 78% probability of being the most cost-effective screening strategy.
Conclusion:
For Switzerland, PE screening is expected to be cost saving in comparison to routine screening. For Germany, the additional health care costs per woman were expected to be €14. Future cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted with a longer time horizon.
