KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2018 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1

Is the management of Rh-Rh incompatibility with noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping for targeted prophylaxis cost-effective in the Turkish population?

Emine DEMİREL
Melahat ATASEVER
Sefa KELEKÇİ
Emre EKMEKCİ
Raziye İRİ
Mustafa ŞENGÜL
Sayfa
1–4
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The second outcome measure was to compare the cost-effectiveness of universal immunization with thatof targeted prophylaxis with fetal Rh genotyping in a virtual economic model.Results: Average cost per patient was found as $259.20 with universal prophylaxis and the total cost was $177,344, whereas if targetedprophylaxis had been applied to these patients the total cost would have been $263,392 and cost per patient would have been $385.Universal prophylaxis was more cost-effective than targeted prophylaxis in terms of both total cost and cost per patient (P < 0.0001).Conclusion: Unless the cost of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping is reduced, a universal approach of anti-D immune globulin prophylaxisis more cost-effective than noninvasive determination of fetal Rh genotyping with targeted prophylaxis.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background/aim: The aim of this study was to assess unnecessary immunization rates and compare the cost-effectiveness of targetedprophylaxis with fetal Rh genotyping with that of traditional management of Rh-Rh incompatibility in a virtual economic model.Materials and methods: This retrospective data analysis was conducted at two tertiary centers between 2011 and 2015.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The data of 1135pregnant women were analyzed.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The second outcome measure was to compare the cost-effectiveness of universal immunization with thatof targeted prophylaxis with fetal Rh genotyping in a virtual economic model.Results: Average cost per patient was found as $259.20 with universal prophylaxis and the total cost was $177,344, whereas if targetedprophylaxis had been applied to these patients the total cost would have been $263,392 and cost per patient would have been $385.Universal prophylaxis was more cost-effective than targeted prophylaxis in terms of both total cost and cost per patient (P < 0.0001).Conclusion: Unless the cost of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping is reduced, a universal approach of anti-D immune globulin prophylaxisis more cost-effective than noninvasive determination of fetal Rh genotyping with targeted prophylaxis.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2011 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to assess unnecessary immunization rates and compare the cost-effectiveness of targetedprophylaxis with fetal Rh genotyping with that of traditional management of Rh-Rh incompatibility in a virtual economic model.Materials and methods: This retrospective data analysis was conducted at two tertiary centers between 2011 and 2015. The data of 1135pregnant women were analyzed. The main outcome measure was to determine the unnecessary immunization rate among the wholeRh-Rh incompatibility group. The second outcome measure was to compare the cost-effectiveness of universal immunization with thatof targeted prophylaxis with fetal Rh genotyping in a virtual economic model.Results: Average cost per patient was found as $259.20 with universal prophylaxis and the total cost was $177,344, whereas if targetedprophylaxis had been applied to these patients the total cost would have been $263,392 and cost per patient would have been $385.Universal prophylaxis was more cost-effective than targeted prophylaxis in terms of both total cost and cost per patient (P < 0.0001).Conclusion: Unless the cost of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping is reduced, a universal approach of anti-D immune globulin prophylaxisis more cost-effective than noninvasive determination of fetal Rh genotyping with targeted prophylaxis.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

DEMİREL, E., ATASEVER, M., KELEKÇİ, S., EKMEKCİ, E., İRİ, R., ŞENGÜL, M. (2022). Is the management of Rh-Rh incompatibility with noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping for targeted prophylaxis cost-effective in the Turkish population?. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1, 1–4. https://ajindex.com/articles/610199

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. NICE. Routine Antenatal Anti-D Prophylaxis for Women Who Are Rhesus D Negative. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2008.
  2. Alfirevic Z, Callaghan T. Anti-RhD prophylaxis for RhD negative pregnant women. BMJ 2014; 349: 5437. Chitty LS, Finning K, Wade A, Soothill P, Martin B, Oxenford K, Daniels G, Massey E. Diagnostic accuracy of routine antenatal determination of fetal RHD status across gestation: population based cohort study. BMJ 2014; 349: 1-7.
  3. Daniels G, Finning K, Martin P, Massey E. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal blood group phenotypes: current practice and future prospects. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 101-107.
  4. Güneli T, Kalelioğlu I, Ermiş H, Aydınlı K. Detection of fetal RhD gene from maternal blood. J Turkish-German Gynecol Assoc 2010; 11: 82-85.
  5. Müller SP, Bartels I, Stein W, Emons G, Gutensohn K, Köhler M, Legler TJ. The determination of the fetal D status from maternal plasma for decision making on Rh prophylaxis is feasible. Transfusion 2008; 48: 2292-2301.
  6. Finning K, Martin P, Summers J, Massey E, Poole G, Daniels G. Effect of high throughput RHD typing of fetal DNA in maternal plasma on use of anti-RhD immunoglobulin in RhD negative pregnant women: prospective feasibility study. BMJ 2008; 336: 816-818.
  7. Geifman-Holtzman O, Grotegut CA, Gaughan JP. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping from maternal blood–a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1163- 1173. Legler TJ, Muller SP, Haverkamp A, Grill S, Hahn S. Prenatal RhD testing: a review of studies published from 2006 to 2008. Transfus Med Hemother 2009; 36: 189-198.
  8. Van der Schoot CE, Soussan AA, Koelewijn J, Bonsel G, PagetChristiaens LG, de Haas M. Non-invasive antenatal RHD typing. Transfus Clin Biol 2006; 13: 53-57.
  9. Tiblad E, Taune Wikman A, Ajne G, Blanck A, Jansson Y, Karlsson A, Nordlander E, Holländer BS, Westgren M. Targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in the prevention of RhD immunization--outcome of a new antenatal screening and prevention program. PLoS One 2013; 8: e70984. Akın G, Dostbil N. Türkiye’de kan grubu araştırmaları. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 2005; 45: 1-15 (in Turkish). Touinssi M, Chiaroni J, Degioanni A, De Micco P, Dutour O, Bauduer F. Distribution of rhesus blood group system in the French Basques: a reappraisal using the allele-specific primers PCR method. Hum Hered 2004; 58: 69-72.
  10. Hawk A, Chang E, Shields S, Simpson K. Costs and clinical outcomes of noninvasive fet