Wj. Smith et al., PREVENTION OF CHICKENPOX IN REPRODUCTIVE-AGE WOMEN - COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ROUTINE PRENATAL SCREENING WITH POSTPARTUM VACCINATION OF SUSCEPTIBLES, Obstetrics and gynecology, 92(4), 1998, pp. 535-545
Objective: To evaluate economic and clinical outcomes of a program of
routine prenatal serotesting for variceila and postpartum vaccination
of seronegative women. Methods: An analytic cost-effectiveness model w
as constructed to compare the current strategy of no serotesting with
1) selective serotesting of pregnant women without a prior history of
chickenpox and 2) serotesting of all pregnant women. In both serotesti
ng strategies, seronegative women were vaccinated postpartum The model
followed a hypothetical cohort of 4 million women over 20 years. Cost
s and chickenpox disease outcomes during and outside of subsequent pre
gnancies were considered. The incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per
adult chickenpox case prevented) of selective serotesting compared wi
th the current strategy was measured. Results: Compared to no testing,
selective serotesting would prevent 43% (48,577 of 112,654) of adult
chickenpox cases, save $21.8 million in discounted medical and work lo
ss costs from the societal perspective, and cost $1126 per case preven
ted from the health payer's perspective (medical costs only). The mode
l was sensitive to varicella seroprevalence and incidence of chickenpo
x among susceptible women but was relatively insensitive to the cost o
f serologic testing and vaccination. Compared with selective serotesti
ng, the serotest-all strategy would prevent an additional 15,645 cases
, at a societal cost of $7653 per additional case prevented. Conclusio
n: The selective serotesting strategy could prevent nearly half of chi
ckenpox cases among this cohort and is cost-saving from the societal p
erspective. From the health payer's perspective, it compares favorably
with other generally accepted preventive practices. It should be cons
idered for prevention of chickenpox among women of childbearing age. (
Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:535-45. (C) 1998 by The American College of Obs
tetricians and Gynecologists.).