Costs associated with screening, diagnosis and treatment for pre-eclampsia Study ref Design LoE N Aim/methods Results Comments Economic — 6 studies Aim: to provide an overview of the The screening studies were quite () analysis existing evidence on the health diverse in their objectives as well as in economics of screening, diagnosis and their conclusions. One study treatment options in pre-eclampsia. concluded that screening is probably not worthwhile, while two other Methods: We searched PubMed, studies stated that in certain scenarios EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for it may be cost effective to screen all studies on screening, diagnosis, pregnant women and treatment or prevention of prophylactically treat those who are published between 1994 found to be at high risk of developing and 2014. Full papers in English pre-eclampsia. Universal screening for containing complete economic pre-eclampsia, using a biomarker, will assessments were included. be feasible only when accuracy is Three studies were on the cost significantly increased. effectiveness of treatment (two The two studies on magnesium evaluated magnesium sulphate for sulphate were equivocal on the cost prevention of seizures and the third effectiveness in non-severe cases, induction of labour vs expectant and the other study suggested that monitoring). The other three studies induction of labour in term were aimed at screening and was more cost effective diagnosis, in combination with than expectant monitoring. subsequent preventive measures. Q4 What are the harms of not screening for pre-eclampsia? No studies identified
Costs associated with screening, diagnosis and treatment for pre-eclampsia Study ref Design LoE N Aim/methods Results Comments () Economic analysis — 6 studies Aim: to provide an overview of the existing evidence on the health economics of screening, diagnosis and treatment options in pre-eclampsia. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for studies on screening, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of published between 1994 and 2014. Full papers in English containing complete economic assessments were included. Three studies were on the cost effectiveness of treatment (two evaluated magnesium sulphate for prevention of seizures and the third induction of labour vs expectant monitoring). The other three studies were aimed at screening and diagnosis, in combination with subsequent preventive measures. 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. Universal screening for pre-eclampsia, using a biomarker, will be feasible only when accuracy is significantly increased. 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 was more cost effective than expectant monitoring. Q4 What are the harms of not screening for pre-eclampsia? No studies identified
Preeclampsia%20evaluation%20report%2016May17.docx