Author
Listed:
- Suzy Duckworth
- Lucy C Chappell
- Paul T Seed
- Lucy Mackillop
- Andrew H Shennan
- Rachael Hunter
Abstract
Objective: To model the resource implications of placental growth factor (PlGF) testing in women with suspected pre-eclampsia prior to 35 weeks’ gestation as part of a management algorithm, compared with current practice. Methods: Data on resource use from 132 women with suspected pre-eclampsia prior to 35 weeks’ gestation, enrolled in a prospective observational cohort study evaluating PlGF measurement within antenatal assessment units within two UK consultant-led maternity units was extracted by case note review. A decision analytic model was developed using these data to establish the budget impact of managing women with suspected pre-eclampsia for two weeks from the date of PlGF testing, using a clinical management algorithm and reference cost tariffs. The main outcome measures of resource use (numbers of outpatient appointments, ultrasound investigations and hospital admissions) were correlated to final diagnosis and used to calculate comparative management regimes. Results: The mean cost saving associated with the PlGF test (in the PlGF plus management arm) was £35,087 (95% CI -£33,181 to -£36,992) per 1,000 women. This equated to a saving of £582 (95% CI -552 to -£613) per woman tested. In 94% of iterations, PlGF testing was associated with cost saving compared to current practice. Conclusions: This analysis suggests PlGF used as part of a clinical management algorithm in women presenting with suspected pre-eclampsia prior to 35 weeks’ gestation could provide cost savings by reducing unnecessary resource use. Introduction of PlGF testing could be used to direct appropriate resource allocation and overall would be cost saving.
Suggested Citation
Suzy Duckworth & Lucy C Chappell & Paul T Seed & Lucy Mackillop & Andrew H Shennan & Rachael Hunter, 2016.
"Placental Growth Factor (PlGF) in Women with Suspected Pre-Eclampsia Prior to 35 Weeks’ Gestation: A Budget Impact Analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0164276
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164276
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.