JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies with intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent early-onset group B streptococcal disease.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and effects of different treatment strategies with intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent early-onset group B streptococcal (GBS) disease in the Netherlands. The treatment strategies include a risk-based strategy, a screening-based strategy, a combined screening/risk-based strategy and the current Dutch guideline.

DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision model.

SETTING: Obstetric care system in the Netherlands.

POPULATION/SAMPLE: Hypothetical cohort of 200,000 neonates.

METHODS: A decision analysis model was used to compare the costs and effects of different treatment strategies with no treatment. Baseline estimates were derived from literature and a survey among parents of children affected by GBS disease. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective, and costs and effects were discounted at a percentage of 3%. Main outcome measures Cost per quality adjusted of life-year (QALY).

RESULT: The risk-based strategy will prevent 352 cases of early-onset GBS for 5.0 million Euros, indicating a cost-effectiveness ratio of 7600 Euros per QALY gained. The combined screening risk-based strategy has comparable results. The current Dutch guideline resulted in lower effects for higher costs. The screening-based strategy shows the highest reduction in cases of early-onset GBS, however, at a cost-effectiveness ratio of 59,300 Euros per QALY gained. Introducing the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test may lead to a more favourable cost-effectiveness ratio.

CONCLUSION: In the Dutch system, the combined screening/risk-based strategy and the risk-based strategy have reasonable cost-effectiveness ratios. If it becomes feasible to add the PCR test, the cost-effectiveness of the combined screening/risk-based strategy may even be more favourable.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app