Cost Effectiveness of Neonatal Resuscitation at 22 Weeks of Gestation

Leah Yieh, Dmitry Dukhovny, Clarice G. Zhou, Ladawna Gievers, Aaron Caughey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of three different approaches to the care of neonates born at 22 weeks of gestation: universal resuscitation, selective resuscitation, or no resuscitation. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model using TreeAge to compare the outcomes of death and survival with and without neurodevelopmental impairment in a theoretical cohort of 5,176 neonates (an estimate of the annual number of deliveries that occur in the 22nd week of gestation in the United States). We took a societal perspective using a lifetime horizon, and all costs were expressed in 2017 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was based on combined maternal and neonatal quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was determined (cost/QALY) for each additional survivor. The willingness to pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. All model inputs were derived from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to interrogate model assumptions. RESULTS: Universal resuscitation would result in 373 survivors, 123 of whom would have severe disability. Selective resuscitation would produce 78 survivors with 26 affected by severe impairments. No resuscitation would result in only eight survivors and three neonates with severe sequelae. Selective resuscitation was eliminated by extended dominance because this strategy had a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than universal resuscitation, which was a more effective intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of universal resuscitation compared with no resuscitation was not cost effective at $106,691/QALY. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that universal resuscitation is more effective but also more expensive compared with no resuscitation, with only 35% of simulations below the willingness to pay threshold. CONCLUSION: In our model, neither selective nor universal resuscitation of 22-week neonates is a cost-effective strategy compared with no resuscitation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1199-1207
Number of pages9
JournalObstetrics and gynecology
Volume133
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

Resuscitation
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Pregnancy
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Survivors
Newborn Infant
Costs and Cost Analysis
Mothers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Cost Effectiveness of Neonatal Resuscitation at 22 Weeks of Gestation. / Yieh, Leah; Dukhovny, Dmitry; Zhou, Clarice G.; Gievers, Ladawna; Caughey, Aaron.

In: Obstetrics and gynecology, Vol. 133, No. 6, 01.06.2019, p. 1199-1207.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yieh, Leah ; Dukhovny, Dmitry ; Zhou, Clarice G. ; Gievers, Ladawna ; Caughey, Aaron. / Cost Effectiveness of Neonatal Resuscitation at 22 Weeks of Gestation. In: Obstetrics and gynecology. 2019 ; Vol. 133, No. 6. pp. 1199-1207.
@article{4e7c4a4d9c7243b0aab83df5e55dba20,
title = "Cost Effectiveness of Neonatal Resuscitation at 22 Weeks of Gestation",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of three different approaches to the care of neonates born at 22 weeks of gestation: universal resuscitation, selective resuscitation, or no resuscitation. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model using TreeAge to compare the outcomes of death and survival with and without neurodevelopmental impairment in a theoretical cohort of 5,176 neonates (an estimate of the annual number of deliveries that occur in the 22nd week of gestation in the United States). We took a societal perspective using a lifetime horizon, and all costs were expressed in 2017 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was based on combined maternal and neonatal quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was determined (cost/QALY) for each additional survivor. The willingness to pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. All model inputs were derived from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to interrogate model assumptions. RESULTS: Universal resuscitation would result in 373 survivors, 123 of whom would have severe disability. Selective resuscitation would produce 78 survivors with 26 affected by severe impairments. No resuscitation would result in only eight survivors and three neonates with severe sequelae. Selective resuscitation was eliminated by extended dominance because this strategy had a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than universal resuscitation, which was a more effective intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of universal resuscitation compared with no resuscitation was not cost effective at $106,691/QALY. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that universal resuscitation is more effective but also more expensive compared with no resuscitation, with only 35{\%} of simulations below the willingness to pay threshold. CONCLUSION: In our model, neither selective nor universal resuscitation of 22-week neonates is a cost-effective strategy compared with no resuscitation.",
author = "Leah Yieh and Dmitry Dukhovny and Zhou, {Clarice G.} and Ladawna Gievers and Aaron Caughey",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/AOG.0000000000003264",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "133",
pages = "1199--1207",
journal = "Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0029-7844",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost Effectiveness of Neonatal Resuscitation at 22 Weeks of Gestation

AU - Yieh, Leah

AU - Dukhovny, Dmitry

AU - Zhou, Clarice G.

AU - Gievers, Ladawna

AU - Caughey, Aaron

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of three different approaches to the care of neonates born at 22 weeks of gestation: universal resuscitation, selective resuscitation, or no resuscitation. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model using TreeAge to compare the outcomes of death and survival with and without neurodevelopmental impairment in a theoretical cohort of 5,176 neonates (an estimate of the annual number of deliveries that occur in the 22nd week of gestation in the United States). We took a societal perspective using a lifetime horizon, and all costs were expressed in 2017 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was based on combined maternal and neonatal quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was determined (cost/QALY) for each additional survivor. The willingness to pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. All model inputs were derived from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to interrogate model assumptions. RESULTS: Universal resuscitation would result in 373 survivors, 123 of whom would have severe disability. Selective resuscitation would produce 78 survivors with 26 affected by severe impairments. No resuscitation would result in only eight survivors and three neonates with severe sequelae. Selective resuscitation was eliminated by extended dominance because this strategy had a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than universal resuscitation, which was a more effective intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of universal resuscitation compared with no resuscitation was not cost effective at $106,691/QALY. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that universal resuscitation is more effective but also more expensive compared with no resuscitation, with only 35% of simulations below the willingness to pay threshold. CONCLUSION: In our model, neither selective nor universal resuscitation of 22-week neonates is a cost-effective strategy compared with no resuscitation.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of three different approaches to the care of neonates born at 22 weeks of gestation: universal resuscitation, selective resuscitation, or no resuscitation. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model using TreeAge to compare the outcomes of death and survival with and without neurodevelopmental impairment in a theoretical cohort of 5,176 neonates (an estimate of the annual number of deliveries that occur in the 22nd week of gestation in the United States). We took a societal perspective using a lifetime horizon, and all costs were expressed in 2017 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was based on combined maternal and neonatal quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was determined (cost/QALY) for each additional survivor. The willingness to pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. All model inputs were derived from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to interrogate model assumptions. RESULTS: Universal resuscitation would result in 373 survivors, 123 of whom would have severe disability. Selective resuscitation would produce 78 survivors with 26 affected by severe impairments. No resuscitation would result in only eight survivors and three neonates with severe sequelae. Selective resuscitation was eliminated by extended dominance because this strategy had a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than universal resuscitation, which was a more effective intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of universal resuscitation compared with no resuscitation was not cost effective at $106,691/QALY. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that universal resuscitation is more effective but also more expensive compared with no resuscitation, with only 35% of simulations below the willingness to pay threshold. CONCLUSION: In our model, neither selective nor universal resuscitation of 22-week neonates is a cost-effective strategy compared with no resuscitation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067060040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067060040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003264

DO - 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003264

M3 - Article

VL - 133

SP - 1199

EP - 1207

JO - Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0029-7844

IS - 6

ER -