Improving antenatal detection of small-for-gestational-age fetus: economic evaluation of Growth Assessment Protocol

S Relph1, M C Vieira1,2, A Copas3

  • 1Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Insights

The Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) shows a weak economic case for antenatal detection of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates compared to standard care. Further analysis is needed due to inherent assumptions in cost-effectiveness studies.

Area of Science:

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Health Economics
  • Perinatal Medicine

Background:

  • Small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates require accurate antenatal detection for optimal outcomes.
  • The Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) was evaluated against standard care in the DESiGN trial.
  • Cost-effectiveness of interventions is crucial for healthcare resource allocation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the cost-effectiveness of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) for antenatal detection of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates.
  • To compare GAP with standard care from a UK National Health Service hospital provider perspective.
  • To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional SGA neonate identified and per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

Main Methods:

  • An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using data from the DESiGN cluster randomized controlled trial.
  • Probabilistic decision modeling was employed, analyzing singleton, non-anomalous pregnancies.
  • Outcomes included incremental cost, additional SGA neonates identified, and ICERs.

Main Results:

  • GAP incurred an expected incremental cost of £34,559 per 1000 births, with a 68% probability of increased costs.
  • GAP identified an additional 1.77 SGA neonates per 1000 births (55% probability of being more effective).
  • The ICER was £19,525 per additional SGA neonate identified; the probability of GAP being the dominant strategy was low (11%).

Conclusions:

  • The economic case for adopting GAP over standard care for SGA detection is currently weak.
  • Cost-effectiveness findings are contingent upon the assumptions made in the analysis.
  • Further research may be needed to fully elucidate the value of GAP in clinical practice.
Abstract