Cargando…
A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2015 and the WHO 2013 diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28801424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016621 |
_version_ | 1783269100478267392 |
---|---|
author | Jacklin, Paul Brian Maresh, Michael JA Patterson, Chris C Stanley, Katharine P Dornhorst, Anne Burman-Roy, Shona Bilous, Rudy W |
author_facet | Jacklin, Paul Brian Maresh, Michael JA Patterson, Chris C Stanley, Katharine P Dornhorst, Anne Burman-Roy, Shona Bilous, Rudy W |
author_sort | Jacklin, Paul Brian |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2015 and the WHO 2013 diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 6221 patients from four of the Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study centres (two UK, two Australian), 6308 patients from the Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy study and 12 755 patients from UK clinical practice. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES PLANNED: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit (NMB) and the probability of being cost-effective at CE thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY. RESULTS: In a population of pregnant women from the four HAPO study centres and using NICE-defined risk factors for GDM, diagnosing GDM using NICE 2015 criteria had an NMB of £239 902 (relative to no treatment) at a CE threshold of £30 000 per QALY compared with WHO 2013 criteria, which had an NMB of £186 675. NICE 2015 criteria had a 51.5% probability of being cost-effective compared with the WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria, which had a 27.6% probability of being cost-effective (no treatment had a 21.0% probability of being cost-effective). For women without NICE risk factors in this population, the NMBs for NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 criteria were both negative relative to no treatment and no treatment had a 78.1% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The NICE 2015 diagnostic criteria for GDM can be considered cost-effective relative to the WHO 2013 alternative at a CE threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Universal screening for GDM was not found to be cost-effective relative to screening based on NICE risk factors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5629715 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56297152017-10-11 A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors Jacklin, Paul Brian Maresh, Michael JA Patterson, Chris C Stanley, Katharine P Dornhorst, Anne Burman-Roy, Shona Bilous, Rudy W BMJ Open Health Economics OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2015 and the WHO 2013 diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 6221 patients from four of the Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study centres (two UK, two Australian), 6308 patients from the Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy study and 12 755 patients from UK clinical practice. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES PLANNED: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit (NMB) and the probability of being cost-effective at CE thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY. RESULTS: In a population of pregnant women from the four HAPO study centres and using NICE-defined risk factors for GDM, diagnosing GDM using NICE 2015 criteria had an NMB of £239 902 (relative to no treatment) at a CE threshold of £30 000 per QALY compared with WHO 2013 criteria, which had an NMB of £186 675. NICE 2015 criteria had a 51.5% probability of being cost-effective compared with the WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria, which had a 27.6% probability of being cost-effective (no treatment had a 21.0% probability of being cost-effective). For women without NICE risk factors in this population, the NMBs for NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 criteria were both negative relative to no treatment and no treatment had a 78.1% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The NICE 2015 diagnostic criteria for GDM can be considered cost-effective relative to the WHO 2013 alternative at a CE threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Universal screening for GDM was not found to be cost-effective relative to screening based on NICE risk factors. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5629715/ /pubmed/28801424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016621 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Health Economics Jacklin, Paul Brian Maresh, Michael JA Patterson, Chris C Stanley, Katharine P Dornhorst, Anne Burman-Roy, Shona Bilous, Rudy W A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors |
title | A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors |
title_full | A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors |
title_fullStr | A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors |
title_full_unstemmed | A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors |
title_short | A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness comparison of the nice 2015 and who 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors |
topic | Health Economics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28801424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016621 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jacklinpaulbrian acosteffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT mareshmichaelja acosteffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT pattersonchrisc acosteffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT stanleykatharinep acosteffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT dornhorstanne acosteffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT burmanroyshona acosteffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT bilousrudyw acosteffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT jacklinpaulbrian costeffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT mareshmichaelja costeffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT pattersonchrisc costeffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT stanleykatharinep costeffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT dornhorstanne costeffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT burmanroyshona costeffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors AT bilousrudyw costeffectivenesscomparisonofthenice2015andwho2013diagnosticcriteriaforwomenwithgestationaldiabeteswithandwithoutriskfactors |