Acyclovir prophylaxis for pregnant women with a known history of herpes simplex virus: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Sarah E. Little, Aaron Caughey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Previous literature has shown acyclovir to be cost-effective as prophylaxis for women with genital symptomatic herpes simplex virus infection recurrence during pregnancy. We extend this analysis by adding quality-adjusted life year measurements and considering women with a diagnosed history of herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence in pregnancy. Study design: A decision analytic model was designed that compared acyclovir prophylaxis versus no acyclovir for women with a history of diagnosed genital herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence in pregnancy. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to test for robustness. Results: We found that 22,286 women must be treated to prevent 1 neonatal death, 8985 women to prevent 1 affected child, and 177 women to prevent 1 cesarean delivery. As compared with no acyclovir, acyclovir prophylaxis at 36 weeks of gestation saves approximately $20 per person and increases total quality-adjusted life years by 0.01. In univariate sensitivity analysis, this result was robust to all reasonable probability and quality-adjusted life year estimates. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated acyclovir to be cost-effective 100% of the time and cost saving >99% of the time. Conclusion: Acyclovir prophylaxis versus no treatment for pregnant women with a diagnosed history of genital herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence during pregnancy is cost-effective over a wide range of assumptions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1274-1279
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume193
Issue number3 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Acyclovir
Simplexvirus
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Pregnant Women
Herpes Genitalis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Pregnancy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Recurrence
Virus Diseases

Keywords

  • Acyclovir
  • Antiviral therapy
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Decision analysis
  • Neonatal herpes simplex virus infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Acyclovir prophylaxis for pregnant women with a known history of herpes simplex virus : A cost-effectiveness analysis. / Little, Sarah E.; Caughey, Aaron.

In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 193, No. 3 SUPPL., 09.2005, p. 1274-1279.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7757ea861995410ca53bafa2e006e87a,
title = "Acyclovir prophylaxis for pregnant women with a known history of herpes simplex virus: A cost-effectiveness analysis",
abstract = "Objective: Previous literature has shown acyclovir to be cost-effective as prophylaxis for women with genital symptomatic herpes simplex virus infection recurrence during pregnancy. We extend this analysis by adding quality-adjusted life year measurements and considering women with a diagnosed history of herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence in pregnancy. Study design: A decision analytic model was designed that compared acyclovir prophylaxis versus no acyclovir for women with a history of diagnosed genital herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence in pregnancy. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to test for robustness. Results: We found that 22,286 women must be treated to prevent 1 neonatal death, 8985 women to prevent 1 affected child, and 177 women to prevent 1 cesarean delivery. As compared with no acyclovir, acyclovir prophylaxis at 36 weeks of gestation saves approximately $20 per person and increases total quality-adjusted life years by 0.01. In univariate sensitivity analysis, this result was robust to all reasonable probability and quality-adjusted life year estimates. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated acyclovir to be cost-effective 100{\%} of the time and cost saving >99{\%} of the time. Conclusion: Acyclovir prophylaxis versus no treatment for pregnant women with a diagnosed history of genital herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence during pregnancy is cost-effective over a wide range of assumptions.",
keywords = "Acyclovir, Antiviral therapy, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Decision analysis, Neonatal herpes simplex virus infection",
author = "Little, {Sarah E.} and Aaron Caughey",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.042",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "193",
pages = "1274--1279",
journal = "American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0002-9378",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3 SUPPL.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acyclovir prophylaxis for pregnant women with a known history of herpes simplex virus

T2 - A cost-effectiveness analysis

AU - Little, Sarah E.

AU - Caughey, Aaron

PY - 2005/9

Y1 - 2005/9

N2 - Objective: Previous literature has shown acyclovir to be cost-effective as prophylaxis for women with genital symptomatic herpes simplex virus infection recurrence during pregnancy. We extend this analysis by adding quality-adjusted life year measurements and considering women with a diagnosed history of herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence in pregnancy. Study design: A decision analytic model was designed that compared acyclovir prophylaxis versus no acyclovir for women with a history of diagnosed genital herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence in pregnancy. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to test for robustness. Results: We found that 22,286 women must be treated to prevent 1 neonatal death, 8985 women to prevent 1 affected child, and 177 women to prevent 1 cesarean delivery. As compared with no acyclovir, acyclovir prophylaxis at 36 weeks of gestation saves approximately $20 per person and increases total quality-adjusted life years by 0.01. In univariate sensitivity analysis, this result was robust to all reasonable probability and quality-adjusted life year estimates. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated acyclovir to be cost-effective 100% of the time and cost saving >99% of the time. Conclusion: Acyclovir prophylaxis versus no treatment for pregnant women with a diagnosed history of genital herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence during pregnancy is cost-effective over a wide range of assumptions.

AB - Objective: Previous literature has shown acyclovir to be cost-effective as prophylaxis for women with genital symptomatic herpes simplex virus infection recurrence during pregnancy. We extend this analysis by adding quality-adjusted life year measurements and considering women with a diagnosed history of herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence in pregnancy. Study design: A decision analytic model was designed that compared acyclovir prophylaxis versus no acyclovir for women with a history of diagnosed genital herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence in pregnancy. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to test for robustness. Results: We found that 22,286 women must be treated to prevent 1 neonatal death, 8985 women to prevent 1 affected child, and 177 women to prevent 1 cesarean delivery. As compared with no acyclovir, acyclovir prophylaxis at 36 weeks of gestation saves approximately $20 per person and increases total quality-adjusted life years by 0.01. In univariate sensitivity analysis, this result was robust to all reasonable probability and quality-adjusted life year estimates. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated acyclovir to be cost-effective 100% of the time and cost saving >99% of the time. Conclusion: Acyclovir prophylaxis versus no treatment for pregnant women with a diagnosed history of genital herpes simplex virus infection but without recurrence during pregnancy is cost-effective over a wide range of assumptions.

KW - Acyclovir

KW - Antiviral therapy

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Decision analysis

KW - Neonatal herpes simplex virus infection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24644440998&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24644440998&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.042

DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.042

M3 - Article

C2 - 16157151

AN - SCOPUS:24644440998

VL - 193

SP - 1274

EP - 1279

JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0002-9378

IS - 3 SUPPL.

ER -