Volume 202, Issue 6 , Pages 548.e1-548.e8, June 2010
Universal cervical length screening and treatment with vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth: a decision and economic analysis
Objective
The purpose of this study was to estimate which strategy is the most cost-effective for the prevention of preterm birth and associated morbidity.
Study Design
We used decision-analytic and cost-effectiveness analyses to estimate which of 4 strategies was superior based on quality-adjusted life-years, cost in US dollars, and number of preterm births prevented.
Results
Universal sonographic screening for cervical length and treatment with vaginal progesterone was the most cost-effective strategy and was the dominant choice over the 3 alternatives: cervical length screening for women at increased risk for preterm birth and treatment with vaginal progesterone; risk-based treatment with 17 α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHP-C) without screening; no screening or treatment. Universal screening represented savings of $1339 ($8325 vs $9664), when compared with treatment with 17-OHP-C, and led to a reduction of 95,920 preterm births annually in the United States.
Conclusion
Universal sonographic screening for short cervical length and treatment with vaginal progesterone appears to be cost-effective and yields the greatest reduction in preterm birth at <34 weeks' gestation.
Key words: cervical length screening, preterm birth, prevention, progesterone
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Reprints not available from the authors.
Funded in part by the Perinatology Research Branch, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH/DHHS.
Cite this article as: Cahill AG, Odibo AO, Caughey AB, et al. Universal cervical length screening and treatment with vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth: a decision and economic analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202:548.e1-8.
PII: S0002-9378(09)02247-9
doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.12.005
© 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 202, Issue 6 , Pages 548.e1-548.e8, June 2010
