posted on 2015-05-27, 08:54authored byK. A. Khan, S. Petrou, M. Dritsaki, Samantha J. Johnson, Bradley Manktelow, Elizabeth S. Draper, Lucy K. Smith, Sarah E. Seaton, N. Marlow, J. Dorling, David J. Field, Elaine M. Boyle
Objective: We sought to determine the economic costs associated with moderate and late
preterm birth.
Design: An economic study was nested within a prospective cohort study.
Sample: Infants born between 32+0 and 36+6 weeks gestation in the East Midlands of
England. A sample of infants born at ≥37 weeks’ gestation acted as controls.
Methods: Resource use, estimated from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social
services perspective, and separately from a societal perspective, was collected between birth
and 24 months corrected age (or death) and valued in GB£, 2010-11 prices. Descriptive
statistics and multivariable analyses were used to estimate the relationship between
gestational age at birth and economic costs.
Results: Of all eligible births, 1,146 (83%) preterm and 1,258 (79%) term infants were
recruited. Mean (standard error) total societal costs from birth to 24 months were £12,037
(£1,114) and £5,823 (£1,232) for children born moderately preterm (32+0 to 33+6 weeks)
and late preterm (34+0 to 36+6 weeks), respectively, compared to £2,056 (£132) for children
born at term. The mean societal cost difference between moderate and late preterm and term
infants was £4,657 (bootstrap 95% CI £2,513, £6803; p<0.001). Multivariable regressions
revealed that, after controlling for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, moderate
and late preterm birth increased societal costs by £7,583 (£874) and £1,963 (£337),
respectively, compared to birth at full term.
Conclusions: Moderate and late preterm birth is associated with significantly increased
economic costs over the first two years of life. Our economic estimates can be used to inform
budgetary and service planning by clinical decision-makers, and economic evaluations of
interventions aimed at preventing moderate and late preterm birth or alleviating its adverse
consequences.
Funding
This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute
for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR)
Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0407-10029). The views expressed are those
of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of
Health. Neil Marlow receives a proportion of funding from the Department of Health’s
NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme at UCLH/UCL.
History
Citation
BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Volume 122, Issue 11, pages 1495–1505, October 2015
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY/School of Medicine/Department of Health Sciences
Version
AM (Accepted Manuscript)
Published in
BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Volume 122
Publisher
Wiley, Royal College of Ostetricians and Gynaecologist (RCOG)